Latest images
RegisterObama not the man America voted for
4 posters
Obama not the man America voted for
by TexasBlue Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:56 pm
Obama not the man America voted for
John Steele Gordon
New York Daily News
Sunday, November 13 2011
A year out from the election finds President Obama in parlous political circumstances. The poor economy he inherited has been very slow to recover, with unemployment stuck above 9% and long-term unemployment at record post-war levels. The housing sector, where most people’s personal wealth is concentrated, remains mired in deep recession.
Although the President had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in his first two years, he has only two major legislative achievements to his credit: the stimulus bill and Obamacare. But the first is widely perceived as both a total failure — the administration said it would keep unemployment under 8% — and motivated more by politics than economics. Its $800 billion was directed towards public service union members and liberal causes, such as “green energy,” rather than economic recovery.
Meanwhile, Obamacare remains deeply unpopular with the general public and is headed for the Supreme Court, which could well find its key provision unconstitutional next summer, just as the election gets into high gear.
Budget deficits have soared during the Obama years, with three trillion-dollar-plus deficits in a row. This has caused the national debt to swell to a level that, relative to GDP, has not been seen since the end of World War II. For the first time ever, the United States has lost its AAA credit rating, a deep embarrassment for the country and thus the administration.
Not surprisingly under these circumstances, the President’s approval ratings have been in sharp decline, with some of his key supporting groups — such as the youth vote — abandoning him. No recent President has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.8%, and that was in 1984, when unemployment was falling rapidly as a major economic boom accelerated.
Few Presidents in modern times have had as weak a hand to play as they sought re-election. Even fewer have won re-election with such a hand.
How did this come about? How did the man who three years ago won a higher percentage of both the popular and electoral vote than any Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson’s landslide almost 50 years ago find himself fighting uphill odds to keep the White House?
The answer to that lies in the peculiar circumstances of the 2008 election and in the personality of Barack Obama.
In 2008, the American electorate was thoroughly fed up with both the Bush administration and the Republican Party, which had lost its majorities in Congress in 2006 for the first time in 12 years. The Republican field of presidential candidates in 2008 was a relatively weak one, with the eventual winner, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, widely perceived as too old for a job that clearly called for a new approach to meet new problems.
Obama, in contrast, seemed like a breath of fresh air. He was only 47 years old, personable, articulate and the first African-American to be a candidate for a major-party nomination with a serious chance of winning. His biggest opposition was Sen. Hillary Clinton, the first woman candidate with a serious chance of winning. But she was already well known to the American people, having been First Lady for eight years, and necessarily carried a lot of baggage from her husband’s administration.
Obama, in contrast, was a blank slate. He had only served a few years in the Illinois State Senate, where his record was thin (he voted “present” a number of times rather than take a stand on an issue), and less than a single term in the U.S. Senate, where his record was even thinner. This allowed people to project on to Obama what they wanted to see, an immense advantage in politics.
The Obama campaign used it to the fullest. He cultivated an image of a new kind of president, one who would cut through the old Washington merry-go-round of partisan bickering and special-interest pandering. He would be post-partisan, a President who would throw the special-interest moneychangers out of the temple of the nation’s capital. This tapped into the public’s obvious yearning for serious change in how Washington worked.
Perhaps his biggest advantage in the 2008 election was that the mainstream media, to put it bluntly, fell in love with Obama. This media infatuation was so obvious that, as the Democratic primary contest still raged, “Saturday Night Live” satirized it with a mock debate. The first question put to “Obama” was, “Are you comfortable? Would you like a pillow?” Evan Thomas of Newsweek called Obama “a sort of god.” Chris Matthews of MSNBC admitted that Obama caused a tingle to run up his leg.
And, for the first time ever, the presidential election was conducted in the midst of a full-blown financial crisis, in which Obama came across as cool and collected while McCain seemed to flounder and look a bit foolish.
But running for President and being President are two entirely separate matters. Once in the White House a new Obama emerged, one quite different from the post-partisan, special-interest-bashing candidate. What appeared instead was a hyper-partisan liberal ideologue who attended to his special interests, such as labor unions, as assiduously as any other Washington politician.
An arrogance and rigidity that had not been seen in the candidate became increasingly evident in the President. In the State of the Union speech in January 2010, he publicly criticized the Supreme Court — many of whose members were sitting in front of him — for one of its decisions, an unprecedented action.
He made little if any attempt to reach across the aisle for Republican support. (“I won the election” he bluntly told Rep. Paul Ryan as the latter tried to negotiate regarding Obamacare.) As a result both his major pieces of legislation passed with hardly any Republican votes in either house, and partisan rancor deepened dramatically.
A groundswell of opposition to the Obama administration’s big spending ways also quickly emerged and became known as the Tea Party. But Obama largely ignored it.
Republican candidates did very well in the off-year election of 2009, winning the governorships in both New Jersey and Virginia with control-the-spending campaigns. A Republican even won the special election to fill the Senate seat of Democratic icon Ted Kennedy in deep-blue Massachusetts in January, 2010, despite Obama’s campaigning for the Democratic candidate.
Still, Obama made few if any political adjustments. Then in November, 2010, a tidal wave election gave decisive control of the House back to the Republicans and added seven Senate seats to their column, while Republicans won races for governor and state legislative seats across the country.
When President Bill Clinton took a shellacking in the 1994 midterm election, he quickly tacked to the center and easily won re-election in 1996. Obama admitted he had taken a shellacking — he even used the word — but seemed no more willing to change his ways than before. His latest plan to stimulate the economy is little different than his first one two-and-a-half years ago and has no chance of being enacted. He has made only grudging attempts to negotiate with the Republicans who now control the House.
Presidents have a great ability to recover politically. And luck may turn Obama’s way. The economy may begin a more robust recovery. The Republicans may nominate another weak candidate. The Supreme Court may uphold Obamacare (or avoid making a decision before the election).
But, as in personal life, the faster one falls in love politically, the faster one is likely to fall out of love. And once gone, sudden love is rarely rekindled. Candidate Obama was like a handsome, attentive suitor. President Obama is like a husband who insists on having his way.
That is Barack Obama’s biggest problem as he seeks re-election.
John Steele Gordon
New York Daily News
Sunday, November 13 2011
A year out from the election finds President Obama in parlous political circumstances. The poor economy he inherited has been very slow to recover, with unemployment stuck above 9% and long-term unemployment at record post-war levels. The housing sector, where most people’s personal wealth is concentrated, remains mired in deep recession.
Although the President had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in his first two years, he has only two major legislative achievements to his credit: the stimulus bill and Obamacare. But the first is widely perceived as both a total failure — the administration said it would keep unemployment under 8% — and motivated more by politics than economics. Its $800 billion was directed towards public service union members and liberal causes, such as “green energy,” rather than economic recovery.
Meanwhile, Obamacare remains deeply unpopular with the general public and is headed for the Supreme Court, which could well find its key provision unconstitutional next summer, just as the election gets into high gear.
Budget deficits have soared during the Obama years, with three trillion-dollar-plus deficits in a row. This has caused the national debt to swell to a level that, relative to GDP, has not been seen since the end of World War II. For the first time ever, the United States has lost its AAA credit rating, a deep embarrassment for the country and thus the administration.
Not surprisingly under these circumstances, the President’s approval ratings have been in sharp decline, with some of his key supporting groups — such as the youth vote — abandoning him. No recent President has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.8%, and that was in 1984, when unemployment was falling rapidly as a major economic boom accelerated.
Few Presidents in modern times have had as weak a hand to play as they sought re-election. Even fewer have won re-election with such a hand.
How did this come about? How did the man who three years ago won a higher percentage of both the popular and electoral vote than any Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson’s landslide almost 50 years ago find himself fighting uphill odds to keep the White House?
The answer to that lies in the peculiar circumstances of the 2008 election and in the personality of Barack Obama.
In 2008, the American electorate was thoroughly fed up with both the Bush administration and the Republican Party, which had lost its majorities in Congress in 2006 for the first time in 12 years. The Republican field of presidential candidates in 2008 was a relatively weak one, with the eventual winner, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, widely perceived as too old for a job that clearly called for a new approach to meet new problems.
Obama, in contrast, seemed like a breath of fresh air. He was only 47 years old, personable, articulate and the first African-American to be a candidate for a major-party nomination with a serious chance of winning. His biggest opposition was Sen. Hillary Clinton, the first woman candidate with a serious chance of winning. But she was already well known to the American people, having been First Lady for eight years, and necessarily carried a lot of baggage from her husband’s administration.
Obama, in contrast, was a blank slate. He had only served a few years in the Illinois State Senate, where his record was thin (he voted “present” a number of times rather than take a stand on an issue), and less than a single term in the U.S. Senate, where his record was even thinner. This allowed people to project on to Obama what they wanted to see, an immense advantage in politics.
The Obama campaign used it to the fullest. He cultivated an image of a new kind of president, one who would cut through the old Washington merry-go-round of partisan bickering and special-interest pandering. He would be post-partisan, a President who would throw the special-interest moneychangers out of the temple of the nation’s capital. This tapped into the public’s obvious yearning for serious change in how Washington worked.
Perhaps his biggest advantage in the 2008 election was that the mainstream media, to put it bluntly, fell in love with Obama. This media infatuation was so obvious that, as the Democratic primary contest still raged, “Saturday Night Live” satirized it with a mock debate. The first question put to “Obama” was, “Are you comfortable? Would you like a pillow?” Evan Thomas of Newsweek called Obama “a sort of god.” Chris Matthews of MSNBC admitted that Obama caused a tingle to run up his leg.
And, for the first time ever, the presidential election was conducted in the midst of a full-blown financial crisis, in which Obama came across as cool and collected while McCain seemed to flounder and look a bit foolish.
But running for President and being President are two entirely separate matters. Once in the White House a new Obama emerged, one quite different from the post-partisan, special-interest-bashing candidate. What appeared instead was a hyper-partisan liberal ideologue who attended to his special interests, such as labor unions, as assiduously as any other Washington politician.
An arrogance and rigidity that had not been seen in the candidate became increasingly evident in the President. In the State of the Union speech in January 2010, he publicly criticized the Supreme Court — many of whose members were sitting in front of him — for one of its decisions, an unprecedented action.
He made little if any attempt to reach across the aisle for Republican support. (“I won the election” he bluntly told Rep. Paul Ryan as the latter tried to negotiate regarding Obamacare.) As a result both his major pieces of legislation passed with hardly any Republican votes in either house, and partisan rancor deepened dramatically.
A groundswell of opposition to the Obama administration’s big spending ways also quickly emerged and became known as the Tea Party. But Obama largely ignored it.
Republican candidates did very well in the off-year election of 2009, winning the governorships in both New Jersey and Virginia with control-the-spending campaigns. A Republican even won the special election to fill the Senate seat of Democratic icon Ted Kennedy in deep-blue Massachusetts in January, 2010, despite Obama’s campaigning for the Democratic candidate.
Still, Obama made few if any political adjustments. Then in November, 2010, a tidal wave election gave decisive control of the House back to the Republicans and added seven Senate seats to their column, while Republicans won races for governor and state legislative seats across the country.
When President Bill Clinton took a shellacking in the 1994 midterm election, he quickly tacked to the center and easily won re-election in 1996. Obama admitted he had taken a shellacking — he even used the word — but seemed no more willing to change his ways than before. His latest plan to stimulate the economy is little different than his first one two-and-a-half years ago and has no chance of being enacted. He has made only grudging attempts to negotiate with the Republicans who now control the House.
Presidents have a great ability to recover politically. And luck may turn Obama’s way. The economy may begin a more robust recovery. The Republicans may nominate another weak candidate. The Supreme Court may uphold Obamacare (or avoid making a decision before the election).
But, as in personal life, the faster one falls in love politically, the faster one is likely to fall out of love. And once gone, sudden love is rarely rekindled. Candidate Obama was like a handsome, attentive suitor. President Obama is like a husband who insists on having his way.
That is Barack Obama’s biggest problem as he seeks re-election.
TexasBlue
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by Mark85la Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:13 pm
Well he ran as a moderate, and managed to deceive the public since he was actually a far left guy. He's still deceiving many people today, though (hopefully) most people have realized what he really is.
Mark85la
- Birthday : 1985-12-02
Age : 38
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by Arx Ferrum Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:04 pm
When more is less?
I think it's fair enough to say that most, if not all presidents meet that definition in one sense or the next... though some more>less than others, lol.
Obama simply overachieved by failing.
I think it's fair enough to say that most, if not all presidents meet that definition in one sense or the next... though some more>less than others, lol.
Obama simply overachieved by failing.
Arx Ferrum
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by TexasBlue Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:25 pm
Arx Ferrum wrote:Obama simply overachieved by failing.
He could've been a good president if he had dropped this liberal bullshit early in his first term. Instead, he played right into the conservatives play book by being exactly what they warned he was. Translation: he is what he was reported to be. Definitely not a moderate. I can handle moderates any day and all day long. NO problem. Clinton was a moderate for the most part during his reign.
TexasBlue
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by dblboggie Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:01 pm
TexasBlue wrote:Arx Ferrum wrote:Obama simply overachieved by failing.
He could've been a good president if he had dropped this liberal bullshit early in his first term. Instead, he played right into the conservatives play book by being exactly what they warned he was. Translation: he is what he was reported to be. Definitely not a moderate. I can handle moderates any day and all day long. NO problem. Clinton was a moderate for the most part during his reign.
But you must not forget, Clinton only became a when the Republicans took over both houses.
Remember that HillaryCare debacle?
dblboggie
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by Mark85la Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:09 pm
Obama will never pivot to the center like Clinton did, he's too much of a rigid ideologue.
Mark85la- Birthday : 1985-12-02
Age : 38
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by Arx Ferrum Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:40 pm
dblboggie wrote:TexasBlue wrote:Arx Ferrum wrote:Obama simply overachieved by failing.
He could've been a good president if he had dropped this liberal bullshit early in his first term. Instead, he played right into the conservatives play book by being exactly what they warned he was. Translation: he is what he was reported to be. Definitely not a moderate. I can handle moderates any day and all day long. NO problem. Clinton was a moderate for the most part during his reign.
But you must not forget, Clinton only became a when the Republicans took over both houses.
Remember that HillaryCare debacle?
I was never that big of a kill Bill guy. Because the GOP owned every piece of political real estate he needed, he had to bend his agenda. As a result, things worked pretty well. Not perfect, mind you. I blame his administration for what we today call 'political correctness' and the EPA was allowed to grow fangs under his watch, the Justice Department expanded its state police purview in spite of the constitution, N. Korea got what it wanted, abortion was strengthened, religion was weakened... but it was still a better show than Obama by a long shot.
Monica was just a media sideshow for me... we don't elect saints and if there are any devout unsaintly to be found in politics, they carouse with donkeys who are cavorting with fleas in the barnyard...
Arx Ferrum
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by TexasBlue Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:31 pm
dblboggie wrote:But you must not forget, Clinton only became a when the Republicans took over both houses.
Remember that HillaryCare debacle?
Yes, I do. I also remember Clinton admitting that, "I didn't recognize myself I moved so far to the left."
TexasBlue
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by dblboggie Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:15 pm
Arx Ferrum wrote:dblboggie wrote:TexasBlue wrote:Arx Ferrum wrote:Obama simply overachieved by failing.
He could've been a good president if he had dropped this liberal bullshit early in his first term. Instead, he played right into the conservatives play book by being exactly what they warned he was. Translation: he is what he was reported to be. Definitely not a moderate. I can handle moderates any day and all day long. NO problem. Clinton was a moderate for the most part during his reign.
But you must not forget, Clinton only became a when the Republicans took over both houses.
Remember that HillaryCare debacle
I was never that big of a kill Bill guy. Because the GOP owned every piece of political real estate he needed, he had to bend his agenda. As a result, things worked pretty well. Not perfect, mind you. I blame his administration for what we today call 'political correctness' and the EPA was allowed to grow fangs under his watch, the Justice Department expanded its state police purview in spite of the constitution, N. Korea got what it wanted, abortion was strengthened, religion was weakened... but it was still a better show than Obama by a long shot.
Monica was just a media sideshow for me... we don't elect saints and if there are any devout unsaintly to be found in politics, they carouse with donkeys who are cavorting with fleas in the barnyard...
An almost complete list Mike, but let's not forget the most damaging act of his term in office, signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law.
This was the ultimate Trojan Horse. Sure, it repealed part of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which some financial instituions and Republicans loved, but the trade off was the inclusion of provisions in the bill that greatly strengthend the CRA and its enforcement.
And we all know how well that turned out.
dblboggie
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:14 pm
While I agree that the President Obama we got is NOT the President Obama I thought I was voting for, I DISagree about him being "far left".he was actually a far left guy.
He hasn't come anywhere close to even "left of center" since he's been in office.
A "far left" Obama would have:
1- pushed for single-payer health care
2- closed Gitmo
3- captured bin Laden alive and put him on trial (for all the world to see)
4- stopped torture, rendition, and summary execution by drone-fired missiles
5- restored "The Rule of Law" by prosecuting the war criminals instead of becoming one of them
6- let the Libyans deal with Libya
Mac,
a far Lefty
Guest- Guest
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by Guest Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:16 pm
That's right, Mac. Obama has given the republcians everything they ever wanted.
Guest- Guest
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by TexasBlue Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:27 pm
You guys think he's a centrist like many right wingers think Palin would be a great president. Bush was a conservative but many on the left would disagree 100%. It's all in the ideology.
I have to disagree on this for the most part.
I have to disagree on this for the most part.
TexasBlue
Re: Obama not the man America voted for
by Guest Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:47 pm
TexasBlue wrote:You guys think he's a centrist like many right wingers think Palin would be a great president. Bush was a conservative but many on the left would disagree 100%. It's all in the ideology.
I have to disagree on this for the most part.
I was really shocked when I ran into this on another forum...both Bushs and Obama and Clinton were neoliberals.
[/code]http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376[code]
Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.
"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.
Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.
But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.
A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ...." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."
In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.
Wierd, huh?
Guest- Guest
Similar topics» Samuel L. Jackson: I Voted For Barack Obama Because He Was Black
» Benghazi whistle-blower a Democrat, voted for Hillary and Obama twice
» If Every Food Stamp Recipient Voted For Obama, It Would Account For 75% Of His Total
» How Obama Can Win Back America
» Black America vs. Obama?
» Benghazi whistle-blower a Democrat, voted for Hillary and Obama twice
» If Every Food Stamp Recipient Voted For Obama, It Would Account For 75% Of His Total
» How Obama Can Win Back America
» Black America vs. Obama?
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum