Obama back on stride? Prelude to 2012, or just for Mid-Terms?

[AtLast]

The fact is that the Democrats as well as the President seem to be in trouble right now. Recently, Obama has been delivering speeches that sound like the guy that ran in 2008 to me. No, I do not agree with everything he does or believes, however, I am not just a little miffed at the falling off of those that elected him during this very difficult time. He's been in office for less than 2 years and taken on issues and policies that most presidents wouldn't touch. he also has been treated exactly like a dog as he stated yesterday by Republicans and Tea Baggers. And, I do believe that much of this has to do with racist attitudes and white privilege.

I have felt good with his recent remarks pointing to the GOP as the major force hurting the recovery in the Us as well as contributing to a culture of hate concerning POC in the US. My hope is that he is just not doing this for the mid-term elections, but this is what we will see more of. Frankly, the economy will most likely be what makes or breaks his re-election. And I honestly see positive movement with many of the policies his administration has fought for. No, it isn't enough, fast enough. But, this administration's changes haven't had enough time (take health care reforms) for people (including small business) to see that in they will work.

Feel free to post during this election cycle and beyond about Obama and his administration. Do you think he is just getting into election mode, or has he finally seen the light with the GOP in terms of joining together for the good of the entire country? So, this is also a thread to discuss regional mid-term candidates as these races relate to Obama and how areas across the country do see his administration. The thread can develop as posters want.....

Here is a link to the Huff Post with an article about this that has several excerpts from Obama’s recent speech.


Obama's Bipartisan Obsession (Finally) Ends

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-..._b_709880.html

[Kobi]

These are scary times and exciting times.

I don't believe we have ever had a "global economy" meltdown before. It is interesting to watch as the powers that be worldwide try and figure out how to orchestrate a recovery. It seems logical that, at some point, someone is going to come up with a formula to create the new economic reality that has been touted in the mainstream media. Whether that solution will be a help or a burden for the average person is an unknown.

I am very concerned about the upcoming midterm elections given the state of the economy. It seems, historically, that in good economic times, people are more expansive in their thinking and voting. In tough economic times, people seem more constrictive. This is worrisome...even to me, a person who at times can make Sarah Palin look like a liberal!

The discontent with the economy has already led voters to throw out long term incumbents. I believe there were reports of 70+ Democratic seats in jeopardy in the House. I am fearful people will express their discontent by voting their emotions thereby replacing one set of Washington insiders with just another set of Washington insiders.

Our politics is too governed by people with oodles of money and the corporations which feed off and bolster their elections. Tea party folks seem to be appealing to a broad range of discontented people who have lost a great deal of their economic security in this meltdown. If you read or listen to their platforms, they are playing to peoples fears and realistic concerns. At times, they may have valid points but this seems akin to a psychotic having brief interludes with reality. They are just plain scary people with scary ideas. Yet I fear their popularity is being fueled by fantastic marketing to vulnerable and gullible people who want quick answers to complex realities.

As for Obama....I have to feel for the guy. He inhereted a bigger mess than anticipated. He has enacted some short term economic stimulus programs which have benefited some individuals and corporations for a bit. I'm not sure these spotty time limited programs bode well for a global recovery but they do keep folks employed and busy for the short term.

He has tried to live up to his campaign promises (welcome to washington Mr President!) and maintain a hopeful attitude for our future. But, we Americans are an impatient people, especially when our homes and bank accounts are in jeopardy.

I think it will be an interesting process to watch.

Now, I have noticed folks here quote the Huffington site a lot. Is there some reason for this?

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Kobi

These are scary times and exciting times.

I don't believe we have ever had a "global economy" meltdown before. It is interesting to watch as the powers that be worldwide try and figure out how to orchestrate a recovery. It seems logical that, at some point, someone is going to come up with a formula to create the new economic reality that has been touted in the mainstream media. Whether that solution will be a help or a burden for the average person is an unknown.

I am very concerned about the upcoming midterm elections given the state of the economy. It seems, historically, that in good economic times, people are more expansive in their thinking and voting. In tough economic times, people seem more constrictive. This is worrisome...even to me, a person who at times can make Sarah Palin look like a liberal!

The discontent with the economy has already led voters to throw out long term incumbents. I believe there were reports of 70+ Democratic seats in jeopardy in the House. I am fearful people will express their discontent by voting their emotions thereby replacing one set of Washington insiders with just another set of Washington insiders.

Our politics is too governed by people with oodles of money and the corporations which feed off and bolster their elections. Tea party folks seem to be appealing to a broad range of discontented people who have lost a great deal of their economic security in this meltdown. If you read or listen to their platforms, they are playing to peoples fears and realistic concerns. At times, they may have valid points but this seems akin to a psychotic having brief interludes with reality. They are just plain scary people with scary ideas. Yet I fear their popularity is being fueled by fantastic marketing to vulnerable and gullible people who want quick answers to complex realities.

As for Obama....I have to feel for the guy. He inhereted a bigger mess than anticipated. He has enacted some short term economic stimulus programs which have benefited some individuals and corporations for a bit. I'm not sure these spotty time limited programs bode well for a global recovery but they do keep folks employed and busy for the short term.

He has tried to live up to his campaign promises (welcome to washington Mr President!) and maintain a hopeful attitude for our future. But, we Americans are an impatient people, especially when our homes and bank accounts are in jeopardy.

I think it will be an interesting process to watch.

Now, I have noticed folks here quote the Huffington site a lot. Is there some reason for this?

I so agree with your analysis about how people vote when the economy is either very good, or very bad. It becomes emotional for many, based upon fear. There is a big difference with this present situation, as so many people that don't usually get hurt by an economic slump are. That bothers me because it means that most likely people that usually just do not have the financial worries of the working class/poor. On the other hand, maybe some lessons will be learned by people higher on the socio-economic scale and they will have a different understanding of just how scary it is to struggle like this.

I guess I personally just want the damn dead-lock to stop in Congress. I want legislators to legislate! No, I won't support many things, but it feels like Congress is doing nothing (both major parties, at times) pro-active. I do get quite frustrated with the GOP and the tactics they used in trying to stop Obama's administration at every turn.

Actually, there has not been the high rate of incumbent kick-outs in the primaries as has been projected. How the mid-terms end up with going for or against the president's agenda remains to be seen.

As part of the baby-boom retired generation that saw years of saving and planning practically get wiped-out, I understand the element of fear going on. I am very concerned about younger generations and the workplace. The rate of unemployment for POC across ages is horrible, especially for younger workers.

I was reared in a die-hard, union oriented Democrat home. I am now registered as "decline to state" or an Independent because I am just disenchanted with both parties. Although, my I vote Democrat and green Party most of the time. I fall on the liberal/progressive side of most issues, yet, I know I have some of what would be more on the moderate side of things, too. I'm also someone that walks up to people in uniform I see and thank them for their service and feel like what they are sent to war about is not reflected in the US today.

Personally, I would love to explore issues in this thread without combat on liberal, conservative ideology- I don't see how this fight helps us find consensus and that is what I see in politics today which makes for the deadlock. Democratic processes are meant for flux and consensus in acting. But, it is a slow process, which is why I think so many people don’t consider some of the strides that have been made in the economy. I do believe that we were on the verge of total financial collapse and that regulation of banks and Wall Street is needed. When it comes to small business, I may not agree with some of the policies of the Democrats.

Then, again, that consensus has to come from all of the people and that just isn't true in the US. I can't abide by the Tea Bag racism and anti-immigrant actions I see, and to be honest, this behavior makes me not even willing to listen to anything they say about the role of government and its size. There could be some good ideas there, but, the ugly stuff gets in the way of my listening to them at all.

Thanks for the post and I hope honest, informed debate gets going. So much is at stake with the mid-terms.

[Toughy]

I don't see any wave of toss out the incumbents going on here. In the primaries, 7 incumbents lost their primary race. 5 were Republicans who lost to tea party supported candidates. 2 Democrats lost.....one because of ethical issues of her son and the other because of his own ethical issues. That's 7 out of a total of 435 House members and 100 Senators. This just smacks of media hype to me.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...ki-R-of-Alaska

My anger is directed at the Senate and Harry Reid. The House has done it's job...........passing most of what Obama wanted in the form he wanted it in. The Senate watered down the House Health Care Bill. The Senate has watered down everything the House has done. There are 372 bills waiting for the Senate to act on. If those bills are not acted on in the 111th Congress, then they die period. They will all have to be re-introduced and passed in the 112th Congress.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...use-and-senate

I hope Obama and every Democrat running will act like Obama has acted the last day or two.

Polls don't mean much right now. I pretty much ignore them all.

[Jess]

Without differing views there can be no debate, that said...

You asked about or inferred to a seeming pull back of support for Pres Obama by the very people who voted him into office and seem upset or surprised to witness this. I can only speak for myself and from watching a wide variety of news sources ( not just liberal/ Democratic OR conservative/ Republican, but both) when I say I think it is because the voters feel lied to. Here is why I think most of middle America feels that way, just based on what I see going on.
A) Gay people feel betrayed because of the lack of actual action/ support for the ending of ENDA/ DOMA/ DADT/ Equal Marriage rights. Mr. Obama and speaker Pelosi among other prominent Democrats, made it very clear that he would fight relentlessly for the repeal of these discriminations and has failed to do so.
B) The Latina/ Hispanic population feels betrayed because Mr. Obama promised immediate action on immigration reform within "the first 90 days " of his presidency. Then later stated via AP while on Airforce 1, that it was "not a good time for his party". Then, we have AZ and all of it's malarky blowing up and further enraging folks who are already waiting for the Feds to take some promised action on reform.
C) As mentioned, older baby boomers lost their ass and have no chance of recovery within the current economy.
D) Middle America feels completely overlooked in any ability to affect change and begin lashing out at any "emotional" issue that comes down the pike. Gay marriage/ Islamic cultural center/ idiots burning holy texts.

I think the greater problem with the whole system is like stated above, most of us more moderate voters can have little affect if we truly vote for the better candidate. Mostly because they aren't in one of the two major parties.
If the informed voter had looked at President Obama's voting record while he held office in senate, they would have found him to be a very pragmatic, middle of the road legislator who rarely voted against anything that BOTH parties didn't agree upon. His votes were missing on any "hot topics", nothing very controversial. His record actually reflected what a lot of liberals complained about in justice Kagen. That she was too "moderate". Makes perfect sense to me that she was his appointee ( and I do not disagree with his choice).

I think a lot of voters placed a great deal of hope on an image and not on facts and unfortunately it always comes back to bite us in the end. It doesn't surprise me at all that a great portion of the fringe liberals who voted him into office are now very vocal about their disapproval. The issues that got him voted in are very "real" very serious human rights issues.

The economy will not be fixed until issues of Union exploitation and outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and taxes ( or penalties) placed upon businesses who take jobs from Americans then expect those same Americans to buy their products or services happens. Encouraging small business is fine, however, with so much of our population struggling to just survive, who is going to support these small businesses when too often their products cost so much more than mass manufactured ( in China, for example: read: Walmart), are the only thing affordable? Add to that the new issues in providing insurance that small business is facing and you won't see a great many folks willing to risk what savings they have or any accrued equity in taking out small business loans.

I say Union exploitation in the sense that today's Union's are no longer necessary in my opinion. My grandfather was a coal miner who was shot and had his legs broken and watched other miners lose their lives in an effort to reform their industry. At that time, Unions were very much needed. Today's Labor Laws demand those safety measures and fair wage and make Unions nothing more than a lobby to create a wage that forces businesses to look for outside sources to fulfill their labor pool. Mind you, this is just my opinion. I see Unions actually harming their members more now than doing them a service. Take the Mott strike for example and the Union folks praying for it to resolve as they are losing money and using up their savings waiting for something to happen. Seriously, how much money does someone expect to make for canning applesauce? It isn't about safety or fair labor, it's about the Union organizers wanting more money.

I am just as dismayed by current politics and the very angry tone of our world right now. We argue amongst ourselves about stuff that on the bigger scale is pretty petty. It's almost as if we "look" for something to be angry about because we are ultimately so powerless in the grand scheme of things and yes, we become enraged when we see the folks we thought we going to give us that hand "up" doing seemingly nothing they said they would.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for the thread, At Last.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I don't see any wave of toss out the incumbents going on here. In the primaries, 7 incumbents lost their primary race. 5 were Republicans who lost to tea party supported candidates. 2 Democrats lost.....one because of ethical issues of her son and the other because of his own ethical issues. That's 7 out of a total of 435 House members and 100 Senators. This just smacks of media hype to me.

Yes, the media is feeding this big time! The numbers don't support this at all in the recent primaries.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...ki-R-of-Alaska

My anger is directed at the Senate and Harry Reid. The House has done it's job...........passing most of what Obama wanted in the form he wanted it in. The Senate watered down the House Health Care Bill. The Senate has watered down everything the House has done. There are 372 bills waiting for the Senate to act on. If those bills are not acted on in the 111th Congress, then they die period. They will all have to be re-introduced and passed in the 112th Congress.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...use-and-senate

Pelosi has led a pretty good charge in the House. She is one congress person that seems to take all the ridicule she gets and just keeps on trucking! Yes, the Senate is a pile of mush and a disgrace.

Frankly, I want Reid out as majority leader, but not see him lose to the non-brain he is running against. There are other Dems in the senate that would be a more effective leader.

I hope Obama and every Democrat running will act like Obama has acted the last day or two.

I'd like this too, but with follow-thru!!! Will we just get the usual re-election politics begining the day after the mid-terms? We have some big problems going and a very sluggish economy.

Polls don't mean much right now. I pretty much ignore them all.

Yes, many analysts make a case for looking at the regional polls in which there are races, not the national polls.

Originally Posted by Jess

Without differing views there can be no debate, that said...

You asked about or inferred to a seeming pull back of support for Pres Obama by the very people who voted him into office and seem upset or surprised to witness this. I can only speak for myself and from watching a wide variety of news sources ( not just liberal/ Democratic OR conservative/ Republican, but both) when I say I think it is because the voters feel lied to. Here is why I think most of middle America feels that way, just based on what I see going on.

A) Gay people feel betrayed because of the lack of actual action/ support for the ending of ENDA/ DOMA/ DADT/ Equal Marriage rights. Mr. Obama and speaker Pelosi among other prominent Democrats, made it very clear that he would fight relentlessly for the repeal of these discriminations and has failed to do so.

Yes, I have been discusted with this too. And the reasons for inaction- the reaching across to the GOP!!!


B) The Latina/ Hispanic population feels betrayed because Mr. Obama promised immediate action on immigration reform within "the first 90 days " of his presidency. Then later stated via AP while on Airforce 1, that it was "not a good time for his party". Then, we have AZ and all of it's malarky blowing up and further enraging folks who are already waiting for the Feds to take some promised action on reform.

Again, I agree. however, I hope that when this is taken on, it is not like how health care reform went! And I want a means for undocumented people here to be able to gain citizenship.

C) As mentioned, older baby boomers lost their ass and have no chance of recovery within the current economy.

Very true, i'm a living example!!

D) Middle America feels completely overlooked in any ability to affect change and begin lashing out at any "emotional" issue that comes down the pike. Gay marriage/ Islamic cultural center/ idiots burning holy texts.

I think the greater problem with the whole system is like stated above, most of us more moderate voters can have little affect if we truly vote for the better candidate. Mostly because they aren't in one of the two major parties.
If the informed voter had looked at President Obama's voting record while he held office in senate, they would have found him to be a very pragmatic, middle of the road legislator who rarely voted against anything that BOTH parties didn't agree upon. His votes were missing on any "hot topics", nothing very controversial. His record actually reflected what a lot of liberals complained about in justice Kagen. That she was too "moderate". Makes perfect sense to me that she was his appointee ( and I do not disagree with his choice).

I think a lot of voters placed a great deal of hope on an image and not on facts and unfortunately it always comes back to bite us in the end. It doesn't surprise me at all that a great portion of the fringe liberals who voted him into office are now very vocal about their disapproval. The issues that got him voted in are very "real" very serious human rights issues.

Yes, they are and I feel anger, too. Yet, I think about what could happen if the fringe gains in the elections. But, I am so sick of voting against someone or something, instead of for a candidate!

The economy will not be fixed until issues of Union exploitation and outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and taxes ( or penalties) placed upon businesses who take jobs from Americans then expect those same Americans to buy their products or services happens. Encouraging small business is fine, however, with so much of our population struggling to just survive, who is going to support these small businesses when too often their products cost so much more than mass manufactured ( in China, for example: read: Walmart), are the only thing affordable? Add to that the new issues in providing insurance that small business is facing and you won't see a great many folks willing to risk what savings they have or any accrued equity in taking out small business loans.

As much as I hate to say this, I don't think manufacturing will ever come back in the US. There is a chance for developing manufacturing, but this still leaves a huge population out of the mix and out of luck. I don't know if people are willing to pay the costs of unionized labor any more in this country. I really don't. And can they?

I say Union exploitation in the sense that today's Union's are no longer necessary in my opinion. My grandfather was a coal miner who was shot and had his legs broken and watched other miners lose their lives in an effort to reform their industry. At that time, Unions were very much needed. Today's Labor Laws demand those safety measures and fair wage and make Unions nothing more than a lobby to create a wage that forces businesses to look for outside sources to fulfill their labor pool. Mind you, this is just my opinion. I see Unions actually harming their members more now than doing them a service. Take the Mott strike for example and the Union folks praying for it to resolve as they are losing money and using up their savings waiting for something to happen. Seriously, how much money does someone expect to make for canning applesauce? It isn't about safety or fair labor, it's about the Union organizers wanting more money.

I do see the role of labor unions having been diminished in many ways. My background is union-made, too. It hurts. My worry is that without them, will more workers be exploited, or work in dangerous situations because companies cut costs on safety? I don't have these answers. it does feel like unions have become big business themselves, in many ways. The days of unions being formed and run by workers, are over.

I am just as dismayed by current politics and the very angry tone of our world right now. We argue amongst ourselves about stuff that on the bigger scale is pretty petty. It's almost as if we "look" for something to be angry about because we are ultimately so powerless in the grand scheme of things and yes, we become enraged when we see the folks we thought we going to give us that hand "up" doing seemingly nothing they said they would.

Feeling powerless about sums it up. I still stay involved on the local level and give time during election cycles, but, yes, I get very frustrated.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for the thread, At Last.

Thanks for posting! I agree that the small stuff needs to be put aside. I have often wondered what it would have been like to be a fly on the wall during the initial economic crash meetings. I am still amazed at how many big time economists didn't know what the hell was really going on. And now, I don't have a lost of trust going on with the powers that be. Doesn't make for good sleep!

Sorry for any typos- goofs... not doing spell check- have to get some stuff done today!!

[Jess]

At Last,
I totally agree it has gotten really depressing to continue voting against something you feel strongly about instead of "for" a brilliant plan.

Thanks again for the thread!

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Jess

At Last,
I totally agree it has gotten really depressing to continue voting against something you feel strongly about instead of "for" a brilliant plan.

Thanks again for the thread!

Yup, very sad. Right now, this seems to be the case and things that need to be dealt with are lost in this mess. I used to have respect for our political process, no longer true. Now, I do have a hard time believing that injustices will be corrected and we will see a thriving and open society.

[Rockinonahigh]

Im not to shure what I think cause so much has gone wishy washy,I understand the prez got a bag full more dirt than he bargained for when he took office,but the house and senate as well as anyone else needs to think of the country insted of being a party person red or blue.The big co's got bailed out and some have paid back the $$ some still working on it...the working class is strugeling to get by on what they can,the middle class is not doing as well as before,the rich may not be as rich as before but shure aint hurting as far as I see it.what craps me out is what he has done to the disabled ppl who arent geting the help they need cause of so many cut backs.Many states have cut back services for disabled to the point that you nearly have to be in dire need to get help for what you need..then it has to go thrue meeting after meeting to see whats going to happen...if it happends.Last year there was no cola for the disabled..it aint much when you get one but it helps..whats going to happen next year..who knows.Then there are the single ppl who cause they arent married with a family dont get the tax breaks on homes they are buying...its all crazy to me.

[AtLast]

Obama: Boehner has 'no new ideas'


http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0zCMcVH7U


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41901.html


By KENDRA MARR | 9/8/10 4:14 PM EDT


PARMA, Ohio – President Barack Obama, fighting to preserve his party’s control of Congress, laid out his battle plan on Wednesday, drawing sharp distinctions between his vision to rebuild the nation’s economy — and the struggling middle class — and Republican economic policies, which he said triggered last year’s financial meltdown.

“A lot has changed since I came here in those final days of the last election, but what hasn’t is the choice facing this country,” said Obama, speaking at Cuyahoga Community College, just outside of Cleveland. “It’s still fear versus hope; the past versus the future. It’s still a choice between sliding backward and moving forward. That’s what this election is about. That’s the choice you’ll face in November.”

In a speech billed as a rebuttal to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s Republican economic policy speech last month, Boehner became Obama’s main target. Calling him out eight times in his 45-minute address, Obama clarified what he was for and what “Mr. Boehner” and the GOP is against, including ending tax cuts for the nation’s top earners and closing loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes.

In a blunt critique to Boehner’s economic policy speech in Cleveland last month, the president declared, “There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas.”

Following the president’s remarks, Boehner issued a statement calling on Obama to “[freeze] all tax rates, coupled with cutting federal spending to where it was before all the bailouts, government takeovers, and ‘stimulus’ spending sprees.”

Though he was in Boehner’s home state, Obama spoke to a friendly audience, which rose to its feet and applauded him several times. Once they booed Boehner, and a few in the crowd shouted “no” in response to Obama’s assertion that Republicans would let insurance companies go back to denying care and allow credit card companies go back to unfairly raising interest rates on their customers.

If Democrats want to beat back widely anticipated Republican gains in November, it will be because of voters in places like this. Obama fired up his base in Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County in 2008, picking up 60,000 new Democratic votes. He’ll need them again for the 2010 midterms.

Touting his own economic plans, Obama alluded to three new proposals to jolt the struggling economy: a $50 billion federal investment to overhaul the nation’s railroads, highways and runways; a big tax break for businesses that conduct research and experimentation; and tax write-offs for companies’ expenditures on hiring, equipment and expansion.

Those measures carry a $180 billion price tag; Obama was careful to avoid calling it an economic stimulus plan, given the current national mood against government spending and the massive national debt. Republicans have nevertheless hammered the president, comparing his plan to the $814 billion emergency spending package he pushed through Congress last year – a measure the GOP leadership has declared a failure.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0zCMx2yA6

[AtLast]

After the past week's Congressional antics on the bill with the repealing DADT, I am just furious with the Administration and many Democrats!

What I am really wondering about, however, is not Obama, himself, but his close advisors.

Any thoughts?

[Jess]

I thought that most of his advisors were selected by him? Am I off base with this?

I think it would be easy to look to the advisor's if he hadn't personally appointed them. I look at the credentials of most of his advisor's ( for example Elizabeth Warren new assistant with economic issues) and they seem to be very impressive, albeit I think mostly academic rather than " hand's on", as it were.

I tend to feel more strongly that his "party" is to blame for the very dissent that is going on within it's ranks. The people hired to make sure he won.
Too many election promises with no delivery.

I am very concerned that the more moderate democrats will swing away from "party politics" and unfortunately unless they are able to rally a strong voice of reason, pulling the more reasonable democrats together, there is little place else to go than to side with republicans. Here again, unfortunately "Republicans" are mostly associated with the McCains out there, ultra conservative God fearing bible thumping fear mongers whom still lead their constituents through means of pulling on their "christian" based views of right vs wrong, rather than on common sense and common welfare.

I am hoping to see more "common sense" politics and sense of fair play emerge. I wish we could take the best and the brightest of both parties, lose the extremists ( even though some extremists are indeed brilliant) and find a path our country can walk and thrive. Right now, I don't see either party being cohesive enough to be effective.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

After the past week's Congressional antics on the bill with the repealing DADT, I am just furious with the Administration and many Democrats!

What I am really wondering about, however, is not Obama, himself, but his close advisors.

Any thoughts?

I think it's bullshit that DADT is being put before congress at all. Obama PROMISED you that he would get rid of DADT. Obama has the power to just go ahead and end it with the executive order - so why the fuck doesn't he just go ahead and do that already?

[Nina]

I think there is some weird thing that happens to the (recent for sure) democratic presidents....once they get elected they seem to forget they are actually the President...they *can* do many of the things they promised...they can, and should, rally support for the issues we voted them in about...

I am sick of it...I have lost (what little) respect I had...

stop putting out the welcome mat for the next republican president and houses...it's shameful and scary and sad....

Fucking. Stand. Up !!

[Kobi]

Sometimes I wonder if we voters forget what politics is all about.

Anyone can and usually will promise anything if it will get them more votes. They will target fringe groups looking for that one thing that pertains to them and suck us in with a "promise" they have no intention of fulfilling.

Even those with honest intentions will find, once elected, for a multitude of reasons, that they cant do what they wanted to do. Yet, we as voters, cling to that one little promise that was made to our particular interest group....albeit without recognizing all the other little promises that were made to a host of other interest groups.

There are few, if any, true visionaries running or in office who have the gonads to implement and sustain fundamental changes to the systems currently in place. There is too much money and power at stake in doing so. Obama's attempt at health care reform is a prime example. The incredibly lucrative health care industry balked, then scrambled to find ways to concede, then rallied when popular opinion turned against the plan. Ride the tide of popular opinion.

The timing of the DADT issue was brilliant strategy wise. Midterm elections are coming. Voters are already looking for change. The ultraconservatives are gaining ground. So you put a controversial issue on the table knowing full well it wont fly because too many political futures are at stake. Hence, you absolve yourself from having to take responsibility for a promise because Congress squashed it. It was simply brilliant!

The growing popularity of the tea party and the wealth behind the GOP is a tad scary. It would not surprise me in the least to have a turnover in leadership in the House come November.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Sometimes I wonder if we voters forget what politics is all about.

Anyone can and usually will promise anything if it will get them more votes. They will target fringe groups looking for that one thing that pertains to them and suck us in with a "promise" they have no intention of fulfilling.

Even those with honest intentions will find, once elected, for a multitude of reasons, that they cant do what they wanted to do. Yet, we as voters, cling to that one little promise that was made to our particular interest group....albeit without recognizing all the other little promises that were made to a host of other interest groups.

There are few, if any, true visionaries running or in office who have the gonads to implement and sustain fundamental changes to the systems currently in place. There is too much money and power at stake in doing so. Obama's attempt at health care reform is a prime example. The incredibly lucrative health care industry balked, then scrambled to find ways to concede, then rallied when popular opinion turned against the plan. Ride the tide of popular opinion.

The timing of the DADT issue was brilliant strategy wise. Midterm elections are coming. Voters are already looking for change. The ultraconservatives are gaining ground. So you put a controversial issue on the table knowing full well it wont fly because too many political futures are at stake. Hence, you absolve yourself from having to take responsibility for a promise because Congress squashed it. It was simply brilliant!

The growing popularity of the tea party and the wealth behind the GOP is a tad scary. It would not surprise me in the least to have a turnover in leadership in the House come November.

You are absolutely right.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6884966.shtml

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I think it's bullshit that DADT is being put before congress at all. Obama PROMISED you that he would get rid of DADT. Obama has the power to just go ahead and end it with the executive order - so why the fuck doesn't he just go ahead and do that already?

Yup! And what is historically ironic is how DADT was put in place in the first place- Clinton made some promises too to get queer support in being elected! What we got was... DADT!!!

[theoddz]

I think what we're seeing, too, in another sense, is the awakening and angering of America. For too long, politicians have campaigned on lies, but before, we were all economically better off and there were enough folks satisfied with status quos, as opposed to those whose lives and livelihoods were on the line. People who are this angry want to blame someone and *do something*, so they are doing just that now and going to the polls. If a politician doesn't fulfill promises, we'll vote 'em out!! Simple.

It always comes down to whose ox is getting gored. This time, it's not just the GLBTQ's and other "fringe" groups. It's now the everyday "mainstream" American, and large numbers of them. Too many people have lost and are losing too much and this has gotten everyone all fired up...and scared, too. Unemployment can happen to career politicians as well as anyone else now and that's a lot of power!!!

So, if we're lied to, we'll vote 'em out and these crooked politicians are waking up to this fact. It's not just "business/politics as usual" anymore. In Michael Moore's latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story", he hits the nail on the head when he says that the ONE thing that the Politicians/Ruling Class/ "Have's"/Corporatists fear most is the vote, because there are more of US than there are of them, and nowdays.....we'll use that power.

Yeah. Change.

It has come, indeed.

~Theo~