Long Term Damage - Obama

[WiffenPoof]

I was watching a documentary on lobbying on Link TV this morning. At one point, they showed our President giving a campaign speech where he promised to change (or do away with) the lobbying system that goes on in Washington...You know, the people that essentially write our legislation.

He was going to be a transformative president...to change the way Washington works, etc. etc. How many times did we hear this on the campaign trail?

Of course...nothing has been done concerning lobbying and it got me to thinking about the rest of what President Obama told us on the campaign trail. I suppose one only needs to review many DU posts to make a pretty comprehensive list.

There are still many here that (in my opinion) make almost every excuse you can imagine for the President. I am truly baffled by those that refuse to see how we were all duped.

Yes, I know that the President isn't a dictator...and there is no doubt that the Republicans have blocked this president unlike any other in the past. I didn't want a pony...I knew that what was left to him was nothing less than a real threat to our democracy. I knew and believed that it would take a long time to correct what the previous administration left us with.

No, I didn't expect miracles....

What I did expect was someone that would fight for Democratic principles. I am not only disappointed in this President, but I can't help but think of the long-term damage that has been done to the Democratic electorate. I think of the young people, like my own children who right out of the box, have been taught that it doesn't matter who you vote for, that it is nothing but broken promises.

I believed in this President. I believed that we had a chance...a real chance to return this country to its former glory, that we would bring about once again the motto of our Party...the Party of the People.

Go ahead and tell me all that he has accomplished...make your lists and your links. I won't deny that he has made accomplishments. It would be unfair not to acknowledge this.

What I do believe that the New Dems, the Blue Dogs and the defenders of this President do not understand is that when it comes to fundamental issues...those issues that are inherently important to Democrats, the President has failed...and failed at a level that I have not seen in my lifetime.

You cannot enthusiastically support fundamental Democratic values in your campaign and then abandon those same values and the people that supported you once you reach the White House. President Obama has broken my heart.

If I had known today what I should have known in 2008, I would have lowered my expectations. Instead I was drawn in (like so many) to believe in "hope and change."

I want to end this by stating what I did expect from the President, even in the face of unheard of obstruction from Republicans...I wanted him to FIGHT! I wanted him to have the courage of his (supposed) convictions.

I don't care what anyone says to me about the attributes of our President. Nothing will convince me that he has fought for us, the little people. Don't tell me that him going down in flames for the people isn't realistic or practical. The Presidency is bigger than any single individual...our country is at stake.

It is sad to see our country continue down this extreme rightwing path, gaining the kind of traction that they could have never hoped to have gained with a Republican President.

I can't see how the President standing up for the values of our party and our country and ultimately going down in flames could be any worse than what we are seeing happen.

I am no extremist. I am a Democrat. A proud Democrat. Now, I am considered on the far Left, on the fringe, when it was only a matter of a few years, I was just a Democrat.

I feel that we have lost our voice...lost our way.

-P

[jaxx]

1. What a shame.

:nopity:

[elleng]

2. If you were interested . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x763454#763467

[gateley]

3. I give almost every POTUS some slack because they are met

with the reality once inside the Oval Office that they couldn't have possibly understood before taking the job. I often wonder if they settle in behind the desk, look around and think "was I out of my fucking mind?".

So, the things they plan to do (it sounds so easy to us 'out here') are almost insurmountable, and not able to be changed quickly.

That being said, I agree that Obama could have done more in certain areas than he has. Maybe not totally solved/changed/elimanated a situation, but taken big steps toward doing so.

[WiffenPoof]

5. I agree with you...

So, please excuse my anger and disappointment. We cannot know what he has faced...and maybe we don't want to know.

My point was the fight itself. We were all standing up in 2008 ready to give it our all and then some. He could not have had a greater mandate. I feel it was squandered.

-P

[TwilightGardener]

4. "I don't deny that he has made accomplishments"--OK then, we're in agreement.

That's why I say FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

[WiffenPoof]

6. And if you think...

...I will not vote for him, then you are mistaken. It would be treasonous not to.

-P

On Edit...just let me add that while I will vote for him, I have come to be very cynical when I hear him speak. I do not believe in anything that I hear him say. Even if what he states in speeches is what he believes in, I don't see him fighting very hard for us.

-P

[tblue]

7. Oh P....

I'm 95% where you're at and have been for a while. Difference is, I never bought his (or anybody's) campaign rhetoric. And still I am flabbergasted that almost none of what I'd hoped he'd do has been done.

One other difference: I do not know if he is or isnt't 'fighting' for what he wants. I just don't see that he wants what I want. Or thinks that is worth fighting for.

Good Democratic leadership from a Democratic president is most definitely not a pony, but it looks like it's too much to expect. I am told everyday to lower my expectations, in so many words.

And when I think of all the people I roped in to volunteer with me and register to vote -- people who'd never done anything like it before -- I feel like they're owed an apology.

Peace...

:hug:

[COLGATE4]

8. +1

[WiffenPoof]

9. The Last Line Of....

your response really strikes home with me. I did very much the same thing. I tend to lower my head when I have to be in the same room with those that I convinced to "believe" in him.

I wish I would have been more realistic in my expectations. However, you will have to admit that he was pretty persuasive on the campaign trial.

-P

[tblue]

11. Well he sure looks the part!

Doesn't he? Tall dark & handsome, young, smart, quick, energetic, athletic, great speaking voice, calm, looks so determined, serious, thoughtful, says a lot of the right things. Gorgeous, happy family. Lovely elegant brilliant accomplished wife. Lived all over the world. Worked in Southside Chicago. He's a Democrat too.

You'd thimk he'd be a firebrand! A take-no-prisoners, political nut-cutting prize fighter.

And then.......meh.

WHAT HAPPENED???! We get none of that? Really?

But it's no wonder the illusion lives on.

[FrenchieCat]

10. In reference to the lobbying issue you raised in particular, in your first sentence.........

That prompted you to write your OP, please note....
at the very least. :hi:

SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
Lobbyists Barred From Agency Advisory Panel

White House ethics adviser Norm Eisen announced today on WhiteHouse.gov a new policy barring lobbyists from sitting on agency advisory boards. He wrote:

"The White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions. These appointees to boards and commissions, which are made by agencies and not the president, advise the federal government on a variety of policy areas."

The Washington Post later noted that "hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected" from the boards by the new rules.
http://promises.nationaljournal.com/ethics-reform/disclose-regulatory-conversations-between-official/


DECEMBER 01, 2009
Report Sees Progress On Curtailing Lobbyists

A report from the Congressional Research Service concluded that the "creation of restrictions on federally registered lobbyists’ access to executive branch departments and agencies has already changed the relationship between lobbyists and covered executive branch officials."
http://promises.nationaljournal.com/ethics-reform/restrict-lobbyists/



President Barack Obama has signed an executive order that extends limits on lobbyists serving in the federal government.
June 21, 2010

In a memo issued last Friday, the President directs, "the heads of executive departments and agencies not to make any new appointments or reappointments of federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards and commissions."

The memo also contains:

a ban on all gifts from lobbyists
a ban prohibiting all appointees entering government from participating in any matter regarding former clients for 2 years
a ban prohibiting lobbyists entering government from participating in any particular matter on which they lobbied within the 2 years before appointment, participating in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls, or seeking or accepting employment with any executive agency that they lobbied within the prior 2 years
a mandate that appointees who are leaving government must abide by any communications restrictions applicable to their agency for 2 years
a ban prohibiting appointees who are leaving government to lobby from lobbying any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service (SES) appointee for the remainder of the Administration.

The memo is meant to strengthen an executive order that was signed soon after the President's inauguration.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=1985553&nid=35


Lobbyist Fires Warning Shot Over Donation Disclosure Plan
4/27/11
The lobbyist, R. Bruce Josten, said in an interview that the powerful business bloc “is not going to tolerate” what it saw as a “backdoor attempt” by the White House to silence private-sector opponents by disclosing their political spending.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/politics/27donate.html


Lobbying Group For Lobbyists Demands Obama Drop Executive Order On Contracting Donations
June 1, 2011

The Obama administration received a stern letter from the American League of Lobbyists firmly warning it to dispose of a draft executive order that would force federal contractors disclose their donations.

"Since your announcement to seek the Presidency you have consistently attacked the honorable profession of lobbying," the letter, signed by the group's president Howard Marlowe, read. "Lobbyists play an important role in the legislative process, serving as educators to elected officials. It is in the best interest to government to have informed individuals who serve as experts in every arena of public policy. Our ability to access and navigate the legislative process and push issues forward through a bureaucratic cluster is a vital service to the nation. The Draft Order would inhibit one of the most vital tools in the advocate's arsenal by creating fear of retribution for political donations."
<>
Having the entity that lobbies on behalf of lobbyists come out in opposition to your draft executive order is not, as political resistance goes, the most daunting hurdle. If anything it could give the White House the type of political relations hook to sell the contracting disclosure policy to the public and skeptical members of Congress -- both Republican and Democratic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/lobbyists-obama_n_869819.html


Obama executive order gets push from interest groups
9/1/11
Executive order supporters hail it as a step – albeit imperfect — toward unearthing tens of millions of dollars in so-called “secret money” that fueled advertisements both promoting and slamming federal political candidates last cycle. The order would not require corporations that don’t contract with the government to reveal whether they’re donating money to nonprofit groups that play politics.

Opponents of the order argue that it would gravely politicize the government contracting process, opening companies up to retribution from presidential administrations and compromising their ability to compete.
<>
To wit: Both houses of Congress have introduced legislation with the intended effect of blocking Obama’s executive order on disclosure, providing he issues it. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.),

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62517.html#ixzz1X6rWrouu


THERE'S MUCH STILL TO DO, NO DOUBT....BUT considering the forces against this one President, while our own sides jeers at him a lot, things are progressing....even if not always perfectly. Wonder what would happen if the people rallied FOR his causes once in a while, rather than simply railing against him? He could use the help. :shrug:

[WiffenPoof]

12. Thanks Frenchie...

I have to run some errands, but I promise to read your post later.

-P

[FrenchieCat]

13. Great. I just think we need to stop expecting this one man to do things for us by himself.....

and that we need to lift him up now and again......

because at the end of the day, what we want done is for us...
and I think we'll have to do more than just have voted on November 2008,
and then waited in the wings, while throwing rocks,
and not truly informing ourselves on what's already been done,
and what it is that we can do to get more.

There are too many people that have failed to inform themselves
on the issues and what is actually going on, because it would require
work, and they just don't feel like that is something they want to do.

There are some who act like they are well informed, but really aren't,
as they operate in a bubble that doesn't highlight positively anything that
this President has done, only what still hasn't done, or didn't do to their specification.

To turn away from this President, and say one is embarrassed about his accomplishments,
or that he somehow didn't deliver, is more self defeating than Obama defeating,
and serves no purpose that will help us in 2012, and in fact is a danger to our ability
to continue the progress that has been started.

Being right about one's assessment with only half of the information
is more dangerous still. It's not a game, and we should be serious about
the consequences that our inaction and the misinformation that we spread around,
as it may just cost us more than we are willing to pay, as spelled out here: http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2011/09/03/we-all-have-a-choice-in-the-2012-election/

[ClassWarrior]

15. I only expect him to do his fair share. I for one have been out there fighting for those things...

...since well before Obama was even a State Senator.

NGU.

[lillypaddle]

14. blah, blahh, blah

:eyes:

[ProSense]

16. This

"What I do believe that the New Dems, the Blue Dogs and the defenders of this President do not understand is that when it comes to fundamental issues...those issues that are inherently important to Democrats, the President has failed...and failed at a level that I have not seen in my lifetime."

...is nonsense.

"Long Term Damage"?

This is the President who saved the auto industry. Did you miss his reception in Michigan today?

Whether it's labor policies, environmental policies, establishing the CFPB, and other reforms, the things this President has done, will have a lasting impact.

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

<...>

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

The Right has always understood how high the American view of the role of government would be lifted if people came to rely on government for something as essential to a person’s well-being as health care. This year, the animus that the Right maintains toward the New Deal and Great Society programs and philosophy — Social Security, Medicare, the constitution allowing the federal public to regulate commerce — has become visible in the Tea Party movement. The last thing that the corporate and ideological Right want is for health care to be a new pillar added to the foundation of government social insurance.

more

In fact, the benefits of health care reform are coming more and more into focus.

[WiffenPoof]

17. You Make Such And Effort...

to defend the President when it really isn't necessary. You might have missed the point of my post. I tried very hard to give him credit for the things he has accomplished. You might have missed that. I do not want to be unfair.

Just to put my point in a different light...
It has less to do with what he has or has not accomplished. It is something far more important. It is a matter of supporting Democratic principles...the principles that have made our party, the Party of the People. These are long-held beliefs and convictions that is nearly impossible for many of us to let go of or even modify. It is what makes us Democrats...it is what makes us who we are as a group and as individuals.

When I do not see my Democratic President fighting for these principles, I become concerned. It is one thing to have the courage of your convictions and fight for them and quite another to either not have those convictions (as a Democrat) or not fight for them at any cost (political).

There is nothing that I can say to you that would help you understand this deep conviction of mine (and others) when it comes to "principle."

It may be one of those situations where "if I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand."

-P

[ProSense]

18. Seriously,

"It has less to do with what he has or has not accomplished. It is something far more important. It is a matter of supporting Democratic principles...the principles that have made our party, the Party of the People. These are long-held beliefs and convictions that is nearly impossible for many of us to let go of or even modify. It is what makes us Democrats...it is what makes us who we are as a group and as individuals."

...what does that mean?

These type of posts pop up everytime the President gives a great speech, deemed so because he stands up for Democratic principles. Then it's, "Oh he gives great speeches!"

Now you say, "It has less to do with what he has or has not accomplished. It is something far more important. It is a matter of supporting Democratic principles...the principles that have made our party, the Party of the People."

Not speeches, not accomplishments, then what? What are you talking about? How do you envision him standing up for Democratic principles if not through words and actions (his achievements)?


"There is nothing that I can say to you that would help you understand this deep conviction of mine (and others) when it comes to "principle."

Yes, you could explain what you expect the President to do since words and actions aren't good enough.

[WiffenPoof]

21. Perhaps I am not as articulate as you are....

I may not be explaining myself as well as I should. So, I apologize. It is either my failure to communicate well...or perhaps...just perhaps, it is what I stated in my first response to you:

"If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand."

-P

[Skittles]

22. your head isn't in the sand, WiffenPoof

:D

[swilton]

19. Here is the main point that I took from your article.

"What I did expect was someone that would fight for Democratic principles. I am not only disappointed in this President, but I can't help but think of the long-term damage that has been done to the Democratic electorate. I think of the young people, like my own children who right out of the box, have been taught that it doesn't matter who you vote for, that it is nothing but broken promises."

To me the issue facing our children is not that politicians in essence lie = we all know/knew/ or will find out that they all stretch the truth and somehow campaign rhetoric does not always result in administrative actions once in office.

To me the greatest tragedy facing our children is there is no longer a party to fight for the middle class, or those in our society for one reason or another have come up on the short end of the stick in the 'means' department...The Democratic Party used to fulfill that role and act or at least articulate that they acted in behalf of the middle class. Obama has destroyed all of that by his actions in office.

[BlueIris]

20. You're not considered the far left.

Trust me. You are, at your most extreme, typical of the agony most mainstream Democrats feel about this failure of a president right now. So ignore the bashing, the mischaracterization and the outright abuse. You are not alone. I feel just as badly for you as I do for the rest of us.