You do understand that Obama apparently can't lead a group of cub scouts to the toilet, right? He's supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party. Either he's a total flop or he's getting exactly what he wanted.
Your choice.
Well, then, similarly
You do understand that Obama apparently can't lead a group of cub scouts to the toilet, right? He's supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party. Either he's a total flop or he's getting exactly what he wanted.
Your choice. |
|
Heh.
"Leader" has many meanings.
What does Obama have for leverage with members of Congress? Especially compared to the olden days when the parties were the major sources of largess (campaign funding, etc.)? Obama passed a nearly universal health care bill with no votes to spare. He knows how to count votes and got it done in the face of nearly continuous unified opposition by the Republicans. Do you think Obama would have vetoed a bill with a Public Option? Do you think that he would have vetoed a Single Payer bill if it had made it through both the House and Senate? http://www.progressi.../nichols0109.html (from January 2009): [...] Obama is a pragmatist. He knows when to take half a loaf rather than expend all his money for a whole loaf that he had no chance of getting. Incremental progress is where it's at. If the public wants single payer, and their representatives vote for it, he'll be more than happy to sign it. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Swing and Another miss.
The facts are not in your favor here. A significant majority of Americans wanted Single Payer in 2009. 58% in favor, 38% opposed in a Kaiser Foundation Study in July, 2009 ( http://www.kff.org/k...s/upload/7943.pdf ). Physician for a National Health Program found two-thirds of Americans favored Single Payer.
This six-part series explores the research on American attitudes about a single-payer (or Medicare-for-all) system to evaluate the truth of the new version of the "yes but" argument. We will see that the research demonstrates that approximately two-thirds of Americans support a Medicare-for-all system despite constant attacks on Medicare and the systems of other countries by conservatives. The evidence supporting this statement is rock solid. The evidence against it - the focus group and polling "research" commissioned by the "option" movement's founders - is defective, misinterpreted, or both. http://www.pnhp.org/...icare-for-all.pdf Another poll in January, 2009 found similar results: The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, Â59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems. Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise. http://www.healthcar...-for-single-payer I guess Obama figured that 32% was far more equal than the 59%. Probably included Big Pharma, Big Bank and Big Insurance types. Want to try again? |
|
The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again.
|
|
Changing arguments mid-stream gets you only so far. ;0)
|
|
Re: The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again.
Alas. this is [STILL] TRUE.
No matter What Poll indicates the sense/sensibility of lots of Muricans (not on the Kool-Aid): The Congress [nor USSC] of 2012 are NOT representing 'people' (Etc. Yada, qed. All Done Here already.) Ergo, I shall Not vote for Any Old/New Nincompoop--as a satisfactory (or even digital-logical) evidence of my discontent with Obama's (say, to pick one: continuance of all the Bush Rights-rapes.) Of Course.. I *would* have used the bully-pulpit In Controlled and Effective Anger! just often enough to 'correct any false impressions of wimpishness'. But I do not imagine, in wildest egoistic Dreams: that as Prez, *I* could have gotten ANY 'Health Care expansion' through the DC insanity --as persists, perhaps even deadlier. But He Did! Jeezz.. it's fucking-Crazy out there, and intensifying unto --> It Can't Happen Here clinical madness. :-/ .hr
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all. |
|
So, can you or Scott help me out here?
If a significant majority want change (isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?) and they get "their guy" in the White House with a huge amount of public desire for change backing him, how is it not a huge, unforgivable failing of the President himself not to leverage that into change we could all believe in?
This is precisely the danger of Obama as President I was most concerned about in 2007. I saw him for what he was: YAN empty Wall Street Armani. Yet, people who still believed in actual change voted him in, taking him for something he never was and never will be - an agent of change. And, as the 2010 elections showed, the disillusionment with the government and the absolute conviction people have now that "nothing will ever change" in Washington almost guarantees the impossibility of fixing it without tearing it completely down. Obama has cost the US its remaining believers. All that's left to participate are the screaming idiots of the Tea Bagger and like movements. Obama has sealed our fate and extinguished the last hope we had: belief in our collective ability to influence our government. edit: tpyo and elaboration of point. |
|
Obama isn't the problem - Congress is the problem. HTH.
Your continued focus on Obama as the big villain here is misguided.
All it takes is for 26 seats to flip and you'll see that your "impossible" strawman will actually flop around in the forest like the red herring it actually is. ;-) Cheers, Scott. |
|
The question remains.
Who is left to vote to flip the 26 seats?
|
|
We'll see in November. I'm optimistic myself. YMMV. ;-)
|
|
See post below. Either way, we all lose.
|
|
Meh.
|
|
Actually no
If a significant majority want change (isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?)
A PORTION of those that elected Obama want the level of change you want. Many of them have other specific areas that caused them to vote for him. You conflate your goals with everyone else's. Since the majority of US citizens currently have healthcare, and they fear it getting worse, then they'd simply like to keep the status quo without too much change, since change is often for the worse for those who already have a piece of what is changing. These are not the sheeple you are looking for. |
|
The "portion" was the determining factor.
Without that "portion" Obama wins neither Indiana nor the election.
Now, that they're completely disillusioned, I doubt very seriously they'll be back in 2012 - which is why even a toad like Mittens is polling so close to Bam-Bam. Just so you know, the people in that portion of America are called Progressives. And Progressives know that you won't get anywhere by being a Partisan Democrat. There are essentially two major camps left-of-center in American politics, and the divisions between the two are often as deep and wide as the rifts between the two major parties. http://www.alterpoli...ident-obama-fear/ But, but, but, He didn't have the votes! |
|
IIRC, you didn't expect him to win IN in the first place.
You think progressives in IN put him over the top there? Really? I think he won IN because lots of people (including a few progressives) wanted to give change a chance and lots of new voters were enthusiastic about him.
Sure, many of those people stayed home in 2010, but that's always the pattern - fewer people turn out in off-year elections, and the President usually loses seats. I've seen little that indicates the pattern was generally different because Obama was there. I didn't find the article you posted persuasive. Or I think it only describes a small number of people. Carville versus Kucinich or something. E.g. "The Left has been especially critical of President Obama over the last three years." Really? http://www.gallup.co...remains-high.aspx Or is this a "no true Scotsman" argument? If you want the system to change, you have to work within it. That means supporting the better candidate(s). They're not all the same. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
No dispute. I did not think he would win in 2008.
I'd hoped he wouldn't because I knew if he came to "pass for a Liberal" let alone a "Progressive" as his campaign indicated, we'd be forever strapped with apologists who say "well, at least he's more liberal than Dick Armey" or some such. The bar for being labelled "Liberal" in this country was already so low that I suspect even Nixon could be so labelled. And that's the discussion we're bound to keep having from now on, thanks in no small measure to Obama's victory in 2008.
Obama's policies have turned us into a nation debating whether we should be as liberal as Nixon or as conservative as Armey or Bachmann. With Obama as the Left Sentinel, there is no longer a middle in American politics nor is there likely to ever be. I'll not repeat my mistake of 2008. The only thing I will predict this go 'round is that if you go to sleep now and wake up in 3 years, review the implemented policies of the 3 years when you were asleep, you won't know if Mittens or Obama won. There's not as much guessing in this prediction because I have three years experience to draw upon. |
|
I suppose that's good to know.
And here's me thinking that all those closed door sessions where he preemptively capitulated virtually every point his base wanted in favor of the big money interests was actually accomplishing something. I seem to recall some blather about how bright he was and n-dimensional chess and him manipulating the republicans. He DID clear the table pretty nicely before the repubs even got there. There wasn't much left for them to attack since all that was left was a republican plan. No prob... He won't miss any meals and his healthcare is covered for life. He's on the upside of neo-feudalism.
There's a bright side though. At least I can't be guilted into voting for him because it doesn't really matter who is there. If there isn't perfect harmony, nobody can do anything good or bad. I think we just beat entropy! |
|
Reread DeLong's recent post.
The choice for president and congress does matter.
http://delong.typepa...-of-november.html Cheers, Scott. |
|
I remain sceptical
DeLong seems to be ignoring the fact that Obama packed his administration with republican retreads (the same ones who caused this mess) and preemptively capitulated every opportunity he got. The enthusiasm in 2008 was caused by the hope for real change. By 2010, it was pretty obvious that we had been sold out and it would be business as usual. Perhaps if the DNC wanted us to vote democratic in 2012, they should have run a democrat.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voting for bottom feeders or bottom ballots or whatever he called them just supporting the LOTE system. They want support, they need to deliver. They failed the voters. We didn't fail them. |
|
Who would have been your candidate in 2008?
Serious question. And how would they have been better?
Hillary? Edwards? Biden? Gravel? Dodd? Kucinich? Bayh? Vilsack? Other? Incoming administrations pick as staff people who worked in previous administrations because they have experience and connections and know how the systems work. Chaos results when masses of new people without those attributes assume high positions. Look at Carter's experience - http://en.wikipedia....ssional_relations Cheers, Scott. |
|
Serious answer
My wife and I both supported Obama, I less so after the FISA reversal. We had an Obama sign in our yard, and my wife pounded the pavement for him. At election time, I thought he was a bit of a stinker, but still better than the others. I thought Hillary was too much of a republican and a hawk. Well, she is, but she's nowhere close to Obama's league. Oh, and we both voted in 2010 (against republicans, of course.) So how do I vote against a republican in 2012? Obama can (and does) out republican most of the morons with a R after their name.
|
|
Thanks. I understand the disappointment.
Imagine if you had Jim Webb and Mark Warner as your senators. ;-)
Hang in there. Cheers, Scott. |