What The "Do Nothing" Obama Has Accomplished That We Choose To Ignore Or Fail To Acknowledge

George, try reading a little closer.  Nobody's calling Obama terrible; we're just saying he's the same as any other POTUS.

The problem isn't whether Caesar is Caligula or Augustus; the problem is Caesar.

It doesn't matter if there are minor distinctions between presidents; one can grow peanuts, one can forget if he actually did something or merely played doing so on film, one might be great at playing the saxophone, while another can cut brush with the best of them - as presidents they aren't so easily distinguishable.

But y'all are only looking at the electoral product of that Republic to the south.  WE all know how the pres. looks, what he does, the wrongs caused.  But when you ignore the fact that he is considered too liberal by a vast number of people, their ignorance as to the hidden agenda of the Tea Party and its GOP followers, and the role of a media that does not attempt to inform, you are only stating the obvious. Easy pickin's.

Why not speak to those aspects of that political system which need changing, and how that might be accomplished?  I understand Sky Captain's frustration in opening this thread.  It's as though you believe the president would not like to do more, much, much more, in reforming a variety of institutions, from education to medicine, and of course, dealing with the plight of African-Americans.

But he does make such a sitting-duck target, eh?  Why bother with all that other stuff.  Particularly if you have NO IDEA HOW HE COULD ACHIEVE THE TARGETS THAT,OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW SHOULD BE  the objectives of an American president in this, the 11th hour of our time as a species. Or are you perhaps the only one with such an acute sense of our biological situation, FM?

And he holds with none of the truths, reads none of the science, that scares the shit out of you and me?  Wow.  FM, that puts us in singularly egotistical positions.  I never could assume that, even though I know that the American/Canadian/whatever electorate may not have quite grasped the import of their roles.  :)

Why would the American people bother voting at all if these two parties really are so similar? I find it hard to believe folks on this forum could possibly say there's no difference between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin.

I don't recall anyone saying "There is NO difference" Boom Boom.  There isn't much difference between the Liberals and Conservatives either.  Again, no big news, most of us have known that for a long time.  Naturally, each Party wants to differentiate itself to the voters but once they ride in, guess what?  Not much difference. Why would Americans bother voting?  They don't have a third party to vote for and don't have much of a choice do they. More and more people do not vote at all because they know this all too well. They are despondent over it and some still want a voice of some sort and vote for what they feel will be the least harmful but the margin isn't huge. Others make sure they vote in order to protect their interests.

Boom Boom wrote:

I still can't believe Americans voted for two George Bushes! Or, for that matter, Richard Nixon.

Nixon is one of the most progressive presidents of the 20th century. He started the EPA, he had wage and price controls, he sought to universalize health care but the democrats defeated him, he ended the vietnam war and he opened up trade with China.

The establishment actually took steps to remove him from office.

500_Apples wrote:

Nixon is one of the most progressive presidents of the 20th century. He started the EPA, he had wage and price controls, he sought to universalize health care but the democrats defeated him, he ended the vietnam war and he opened up trade with China.

The establishment actually took steps to remove him from office.

Long before he was elected POTUS, he wasn't exactly known for his charisma. That's what I was referring to.

I'm also amazed that Reagan was elected. Holy crap!

This is EXACTLY the truth of what is happening as Aristotleded 24 accurately has stated above.  I have talked to many blacks (African Americans) in the U.S. who have told me the same thing.  Some voted for Obama, some did not and saw through the charade early on. 

You folks don't follow the U.S. political polls and seem to have no idea how misled the great unwashed actually are and how passionately they argue against this liberal president.  Perhaps you at least follow Krugman's economic concerns in the NYTimes (as close to liberal-Democratic concerns as we're going to get). 

Yes, Sj, the U.S.military's use of weaponry that kills innocent civilians is a crime just as heinous as the exploding of bombs in crowded marketplaces.  As pacifists we should be poised to condemn both actions. And I'll bet you are also poised to explain how the pres. overcomes the down-home sentiment favouring an eye for an eye.   Although it has been some years since I've seen a hint of anything but criticism...warranted but a bit of a one-note without a concomitant offer of solutions that are achieveable in this world. How about a hint of hope now...keeping it practical, not "we should" or "they should" stuff.  More "they could."

al-Qa'bong wrote:

They could have voted for Ralph Nader.

Yes, and he would have been an inspired choice, but I suspect many did not do so because they were afraid he would split the vote against their opponent. You know, like what happens in Canada every election

One step in the right direction would be for the US to revoke corporate charters.

The obvious problem with this is that there are Democrats and Republicans in government.

FRUSTRATED MESS!  You maybe frustrated but you sure ain't a mess. Join the rest of the frustrated clan!  Your above post is fantastic.  If you are not an author of the truth, then it is time to GO TO IT.  Your analogies are exquisite - I cannot find another word for it.  WOW.  I have felt defeated on one of the threads today (big time), but you made my day with your forthright statement.  THANK YOU!  Talk about telling it like it is. May you multiply. :)

The eggs analogy is from the language of marketing, FM.  Your vision of self does not admit that others could be concerned with keeping away the vermin that would be far quicker to unleash the dogs of war.  In other words, you inhabit a neat little world with parameters dictated by a moral vision, a world unrecognizeable to the vast majority of the American electorate. 

Joe Bageant's latest (be back in a minute with a pricess extract..  :)

From "Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball:

"If there is no economy left, what the hell are we all participating in? A mirage? The zombie ball? The short answer is: Because the economy is a belief system, you are participating in whatever you believe you are. Personally, I believe we are participating in a modern extension of the feudal system, with bankers as the new feudal barons and credit demographics as their turf. But then, I drink and take drugs. Whatever it is, the money economy is the only game in town until the collapse, after which chickens and firewood may become the national currency. The Masai use cattle don't they?

At the same time, even dumb people are starting to feel an undefined fear in their bones. When I was back in the States last month, an old high school chum, a sluggard who seldom has forward thought beyond the next beer and Lotto scratch ticket, confides in me:

"Joey, I can't shake the feeling that something big and awful is going to happen. And by awful I mean awful."

"Happen to what?"

"Money, work, our country. Shit, I dunno."

"Probably all three," I opined. "Plus the environment."

"Cheerful fuck, ain't ya?"

"That's what they pay me for, Bubba."

Some in the herd are starting to feel a big chill in the air, the first winds of the approaching storm. Yes, something is happening, and you don't know what it is, dooooo yew, Mistah Jones?

However, the most adept economists and other court sorcerers are going along as if nothing too unusual is happening -- calling it a recession, or more recently a double-dip recession (don't you love these turd-balls, making it sound as harmless as an ice cream cone -- gimme a double dip please!) or even a depression. But no matter what it is, they smugly assure us, there is nothing happening that the world has never seen before. Including the insider scams that ignited the catastrophe. It's just a matter of size. Extent."

 

Ya see Pilgrim, it's more than one guy at work. Not so neat a picture, and terribly more complicated.

I have trouble following your line of reasoning, Geo.  I can't argue with the Bageant quote - there's nothing surprising there except that an erstwhile "Ma and apple pie" Merrikan is finally coming around to a dim sense that he's been told a pack of lies.  The few yanquis I've met seem inexplicably resistant to that idea.  .

We seem to agree on this.

On the other hand, Michael Moore's recent film on capitalism showed stats demonstrating that more yanquis prefer socialist ideas to capitalist beliefs. Believe it or not, the swinish multitude can discern between government/corporatist propaganda and their real best interests.

We seem to agree on what the dogs of war are up to.

FM's egg marketing analogy is spot on - I don't see why you find fault in it.

Quite often when I read you posts I think I agree with the kernel of what you're saying, but then the kernel becomes blurred behind a swirl of chaff, and I'm not sure what you're saying.

Maybe you just like to argue.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I have trouble following your line of reasoning, Geo.  I can't argue with the Bageant quote - there's nothing surprising there except that an erstwhile "Ma and apple pie" Merrikan is finally coming around to a dim sense that he's been told a pack of lies.  The few yanquis I've met seem inexplicably resistant to that idea.  .

We seem to agree on this.

On the other hand, Michael Moore's recent film on capitalism showed stats demonstrating that more yanquis prefer socialist ideas to capitalist beliefs. Believe it or not, the swinish multitude can discern between government/corporatist propaganda and their real best interests.

We seem to agree on what the dogs of war are up to.

FM's egg marketing analogy is spot on - I don't see why you find fault in it.

Quite often when I read you posts I think I agree with the kernel of what you're saying, but then the kernel becomes blurred behind a swirl of chaff, and I'm not sure what you're saying.

Maybe you just like to argue.

 

And maybe, alQ, you, like the American public, just want to focus on the guy in charge and blame him?  Bageant points out the level of thought of so many in the great republic to the south.  That, he is saying, is a large part of what's wrong.  Bageant is not faulting Obama. Bageant is not guilty of falling for the marketing line.  He says his old school buddy is plain goddam ignorant!  , horror of horrors.  But, in full flight from such incorrectness, you only want to say that the American scene is shifting, that such folk are coming to realize they've been had, there is no need for such elitist expressions about the "swinish multitude" as you put it.

Read enough of Bageant, or Monbiot, etc., and you see that they are not proclaiming a new dawn of awareness among the 'Merican public, but citing such backwardness to explain how the madness of a Tea- Party-led GOP came to be...and is growing.

Those yanks whom you say won't admit to being had...they are not going to understand your good guy/ bad guy description of their plight for much the same reason,and they are not about to read Mannheim or Chomsky on ideology.  But perhaps you should. You would then perhaps be able to understand their "ignorance"... which is really only an acculturated lack of facts, of history. A product of propagandization from youth. But we have to call it something, eh? 

But I'll leave you with your less complex world.  It must be reassuring to be able to describe events in such simple, readily understandable terms, comforting to the ego.

I loved Moore's film about capitalism although it depressed the hell out of me - but there was a strong message of hope at the end. Solidarity now! 

The Gobe and Mail editorial board today celebrates Obama's "tremendous courage in challenging Arizona's new, draconian immigration law." He's taking them to court and has promised a second lawsuit, against any racial profiling used in applying this law. "To their credit, the police chiefs of Arizona's two largest cities have joined the federal government's legal action."

The Globe's conservative columnist in Washington, Konrad Yakabuski smirks in a poll story today about th 51 per cent of Americans who say it's more important to have Republicans in charge of Congress; 43 per cent favour Democrats in charge. The results are roughly the same on the question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy."

The editorial muses: "Mr. Obama finds himself on the defensive on so many fronts; two wars, a struggling economy (no mention of the Republican role in that struggle, my ed.)  and the BP oil spill are all cutting into his popularity.  That he would act on principle and put swing votes at risk so soon before Nobember congressional elections, by challenging a popular law in court, is commendable."

But that is not sacrificing enough for the Globe: "He must muster even more courage by taking the fight to Congress, and pushing for immigration reform."  If only the Globe could summon a soupcon of that courage from its business reporters. Bowing to the realilty of the immigrant's role in the U.S. economy, the editorialist observes that "in many states, up to a quarter of agricultural workers are illegal," making illegal immigration a "secret cornerstone of the American economy."

Lynne Varner, a columnist for The Seattle Times, reports that a University of Washington survey this spring "found race, alongside politics and the size of government, to be key issues energizing the tea-party movement." You have to be "white, straight and Protestant."

A teapartyer who was "challenging a Democrat in Illinois's 9th Congressional District was asked about the movement's lack of diversity and responded by pointing to a fellow member (and African American) Chris Broughton" but Broughton " is also the guy who brought an AR-15 rifle and a handgun to an Arizona Obama rally last year because he concurred with his fundamentalist pastor's preyer for Obama 'to die and go to hell'." 

But, clearly, this  black president should not let institutionalized militarism or McCarthyism stand in the way of unilateral declarations against even the Supreme Court of the United States. And mid-term elections among a racist electorate should not stand in the way of presidential edicts any more than the constitution itself.   He is clearly just another wuss. 

 

Frustrated Mess wrote:

So you're arguing that Obama is pursuing Bush policies and using his own "justice" department to crush civil liberties because he is afraid of the Tea Party?

FM, if you can read that in this:

"But, clearly, this  black president should not let institutionalized militarism or McCarthyism stand in the way of unilateral declarations against even the Supreme Court of the United States. And mid-term elections among a racist electorate should not stand in the way of presidential edicts any more than the constitution itself.   He is clearly just another wuss."

 

...then you have become a literalist .  :)

But I don't believe that, because you have started your sentence with "So", which hereabouts means that the writer is setting one up with a complete misinterpretation, requiring a defence.  The United States is not only militaristic, its people depend on "defence" (read war) production to keep the wheels of industry turning. Ancient Sparta must have looked like this.  I believe Leo Strauss recognized that only there could he get away with Natural Rights and History (and Steve is eating his heart out).  So when I say, tongue in cheek, that the pres. shouldn't let institutionalized militarism or McCarthyism stand in the way of doing something, I mean that, of course, he can't make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of a militaristic state. We shall see what he says and does in the developing horror show of Iran. And the rest of that paragraph is in the same vein. 

How the U.S. "got that way" is taken up by Barbara Kingsolver in her new novel. The Lacuna, which I just heard about last night on CBC radio. It goes back two-thirds of a century, and I grew up with those developments in a labour household in the 40s and 50s.  Dwight Eisenhower, of course, warned the world about what was occurring when he left office. But, of course, its like the market itself...who's going to say that the emperor that employs  one is a violent, monstrous creature, or support anyone who does?  

You're just discovering that the U.S. calls the shots, krop?   And you don't like what it has become since the Second World War? 

Better late than never.  But calling Condy and Barry soul mates is not about to lead to understanding...of anything.    Try and refine your political analysis a teensy bit.  :)  Understanding why the GOP is dragging its heels on all legislation will also help you to understand what Steve is up to here. 

Or is it all the same to you?

"So George," he says.  I'll just repeat what I said to FM about the "so" folk:

"But I don't believe that, because you have started your sentence with "So", which hereabouts means that the writer is setting one up with a complete misinterpretation, requiring a defence.  The United States is not only militaristic, its people depend on "defence" (read war) production to keep the wheels of industry turning. Ancient Sparta must have looked like this.  I believe Leo Strauss recognized that only there could he get away with Natural Rights and History (and Steve is eating his heart out).  So when I say, tongue in cheek, that the pres. shouldn't let institutionalized militarism or McCarthyism stand in the way of doing something, I mean that, of course, he can't make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of a militaristic state. We shall see what he says and does in the developing horror show of Iran."

 

SO, kropster, no I do not believe we should "shut the fuck up." Just an hour ago I had a long telephone chat with my cousin and her husband in North Carolina. He was wounded in fighting in France in 1944, and Betty was the typical English war bride. They have no idea where the teaparty folk are coming from except that they are obviously essentially racist, and their ridiculous charges against Obama can only come from that base. Betty and Len are old-line GOP people from upper New York state - his forbears floated over on the Mayflower. They represent middle America, and they are afraid for their son's and grandson's future because of what is BEING DONE TO Obama. I find the discussion here just as ridiculous in the way that it subverts any consideration of his attempts to overcome the dead hand of America's social history.  There are many good people in America who are trying to see their way through a crisis of leadership that threatens to leave us all with something very bad indeed, not even governable.

Your post George make no sense. You agree that america is a militaristic society and you expect minor tinkering to accomplish anything?  You are delusional in your believe that america has a democratic system of government.  Like the USSR and other totalitarian states the constitution on paper is reads really nice and progressive.  However in the USSR the central politburo made all the real decisions and in the USA Wall street makes all the real decisions and Obama is merely the nice facade.

I watch what the GOP is doing and all I have to say is who cares.  The Supreme Court corporate lackeys have sold the whole country out.  I will be real interested to see how many elections it will take before the majority of election ads are from corporations telling people who not to vote for because they will lose their jobs and livelihood.

But a modest attempt to talk about change should be good enough right?  God Bless America and Nobody Else.