President Obama is a decent man. He's no FDR and we sorely need an FDR

[cali]

We desperately need a President and politicians who don't go along with the corporate class. President Obama does. As Bernie points out in his interview with Jonathan Tasini in Playboy:

" Well, as a matter of fact, it’s no great secret that early on the president made a deal with the drug companies to get them onboard, saying there would not be an effort to lower the cost of prescription drugs. On financial issues the president is a moderate, not very progressive at all. "

<snip>

http://www.playboy.com/playground/view/bernie-sanders-playboy-interview?page=3

I don't hate President Obama and maybe he's the best we can hope for in this day and age.

Sorry, but I think that's just sad.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. We thank you for your tepid support

It's better than nothing.

[11 Bravo]

6. You almost have to admire the level of relentlessly consistent negativism.

[cali]

17. It's called dealing with reality.

[krawhitham]

207. It can be called a lot of things, reality is not one of them

[Myrina]

41. Also have to admire the level of relentless dissent squashing from the fanboi faction ....

.... Nobody can step out of line, can they? It's like the adorers have a Bat Signal and have to rush to the thread to stomp on the dissenter's opinion.

Interesting, that.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

55. Or they see the thread at top of the page and offer their opinion

Someone disagreeing and offering contrary opinion is not "quashing dissent".

But feel free to engage in hyperbole.

[progressoid]

67. Um,

This, "We thank you for your tepid support It's better than nothing" isn't really a contrary opinion. Just snark.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. You snarked in the plural 'we thank you'. What is that about?

Who is this 'we'? Are you conjoined twins? Mouse in your pocket? What's the story?

[QC]

159. Maybe he has a fabulous pink pony. n/t

[reddread]

90. energizer bunny sex

motivated by the purest of reasons.
That phat pharmaceutical cash goes a long way.
as it is meant to.

[kestrel91316]

178. + 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed.

[cui bono]

195. Why yes, yes you do. Especially this sort:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3901012

[Renew Deal]

68. lol

[JaneyVee]

85. FDR had 300+ in the House and 70+ in the Senate.

[Bonobo]

140. Obama vetoes: 4. FDR vetoes: 635 nt

[JaneyVee]

144. Because Republicans aren't concerned with writing legislation, only blocking it.

And they sure as hell aren't concerned with governing, just obstructing it.

[krawhitham]

208. And how many total bills have passed the 113th United States Congress?

It is hard to veto bills that are never passed

[joshcryer]

210. FDR's vetoes of reparations for Indians... yay.

The lions share of FDR's vetoes were vetoes against "relief" for people, basically payouts for whatever reason (in some instances it was early retirement, in others it was for injuries in war, etc). Most of those were dealt with by simply passing disability laws and veterans benefits laws and pension laws, etc.

The fact is that the 111-112th congresses haven't passed anything worth vetoing or which wouldn't have been overridden.

[cui bono]

194. Have you thanked Obama for HIS tepid support?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3901012

[Pretzel_Warrior]

196. ahh...linking to an article from Glenn Greenwald who admits he's not objective right in his piece

when he says the group he founded was responsible for drafting and trying to get funded the primary challenger to Blanche Lincoln. I don't trust Glenn Greenwald. He could very easily have gotten the seat taken away from Dems in Arkansas for all we know.

Obama has shown support for the poor, those without health care, GLBT, and immigrants. That is a far cry more than any Republican or Democrat in the past 40+ years. Including Bill Clinton who was Republican Lite compared to Obama.

The funny thing is....a lot of liberals are as guilty of manufacturing "Monster Obama" as the right wingers are. It's just your "Monster Obama" is GONNA do all this horrible stuff. You just know it. Meanwhile, he's not. The tireless whining and working against our president is getting old.

[cui bono]

197. So you're going to discount something that actually happened simply because GG wrote it?

If you're going to discount articles simply because the journalist who wrote it is critical of Obama - bet you loved him when he wrote about Bush - there's going to be slim pickings for you out there.

Obama is republican lite. No recent president had such a swell of support, such a mandate as Obama had when he was elected and what did he do? He squandered it away by keeping around a ton of Bushies and putting Wall Street smack dab in the middle of the WH. Even Clinton never did that, and you call Clinton R lite compared to Obama? No Dem until Obama has offered up SS in negotiations. None. It's completely against what true Dems stand for. They are both R lite, that's corporate Dems for you.

Neither I nor anyone else manufactured a "Monster Obama". Show me where anything I've posted has been based on fear rather than what PBO has actually done or failed to do. No one is "working against our president". Show me where I have done that. Hell show me where anyone on DU is "working against our president". Stepping up your bs rhetoric doesn't make it any more true. The fact of the matter is that there is a faction on DU that simply can't bear to hear any criticism of Obama at all and so they try to turn those who do criticize into "Obama haters" rather than address any of the issues.

Which reminds me, do you care to address the facts of the article at all rather than dismiss it because you dislike the journalist who wrote it? Why did Obama and co. step in and do that? Why did he foil his own plot if he really wanted a congress to work with him on progressive issues? Why doesn't he want progressives in congress?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

198. Clinton. NAFTA and Telecommunications Act of 1996. Among others.

And don't run with the "Well, he had a GOP congress!!"

What Obama did was put people in place who created some continuity during the financial crisis. He was an unknown quantity and needed to be a steady steward of the economy more than anything else. Getting Joe Green Party in as Secretary of Treasury wasn't his first priority.

Oh, and way to not comment on the fact that Glenn Greenwald was in charge of an organization and effort to oust Blanche Lincoln, and then we're supposed to trust him as a trusted news source when he writes his point of view hack article in Salon about the aftermath?

[cui bono]

199. I'm not defending Clinton. You sure like to try to change the topic, don't you?

So you agree Obama sabotaged his chance for a more progressive congress then. Good. We're making progress. Is that why Obama put Wall Street in the WH too? God forbid we get an unknown progressive in there, better to put the sharks in.

That logic is so severely flawed, but at least you made the attempt. Stills shows Obama has no desire for a progressive congress. Not hard to understand why. You almost were able to admit it yourself when you said he "needed a stead steward of the economy" but you understandably worded it in such a way as to try to hide the true meaning. He needed a congress that wouldn't go against corporate America, because that is who he really supports when it comes to economics in this country. Why else would he put Wall Street in the WH? Why else would he not investigate and re-regulate the banksters? That he doesn't want to be able to do anything is made clear by his actions.

Sure we get thrown social bones, what does corporate America really care whether gays are getting married or not or what happens with immigrants? That doesn't affect their finances. As long as Obama gives them what they want economically that's all they care about, and he has shown his love for Wall Street many times over.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

200. woops! I guess you is WRONG! but you must be used to it by now

Obama does want a progressive congress. He also has better polling then Greenwald and you and it is clear he felt the primary challenge would lead to an end result of GOP seat. Just froma results stanpoint--that would be stupid. I don't care what principles anyone delcares they hold.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/25/obama-gives-a-boost-to-elizabeth-warren/

that was just after 2 minutes of google search

[cui bono]

202. Eliabeth Warren race wasn't a primary and the youtube clip is from 2006, when Obama was campaigning

for himself.

You do understand the difference of supporting a progressive against an R and supporting a centrist (D) against a progressive (D), right? And that when politicians are campaigning for themselves they present themselves how they want the public to see them. Clinton and Obama both ran as being more progressive than they governed. Hell, Obama even spoke out against NAFTA when he was campaigning and we all know how his free trade policy turned out. Can you say TPP?

Better go spend a few more minutes on google.

And please, your polling comment is just plain moronic. How many people do you think know who GG is compared to Obama? And really, than me? Really? And you want me to take you seriously?

Good lord.

[leveymg]

2. Better a good, principled Democratic President, than a failed Deal Maker.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Maybe someday we will actually get that choice on our ballot.

and not simply the Democrat, the Republican, and a list of protest votes who can not be elected.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. Better a pragmatic progressive than a "pure" president who gets nothing passed

[leveymg]

12. There's no danger of a "pure" anything in DC. Obama does need to hold to some basic principles -

protecting benefit levels for SS and Med are basic and essential to what a Democrat is. Without that, we are just the Republican-Lite.

[cali]

18. He's not a progressive. not when it comes to economics- as bernie points out.

he's really, really not a progressive.

[rhett o rick]

70. Some have redefined "progressive" as anything to the left of the TeaBagger Party.

Pragmatism, the excuse to do nothing.

[tridim]

102. Who gets to define "progressive"?

[rhett o rick]

109. Is this a guessing game? If you have something to say, why dont you speak out instead

of playing 20 questions?

[tridim]

114. LOL. Difficult question huh?

Obama is making progress by the dictionary definition. He is a progressive Democrat.

[rhett o rick]

120. The definition of a Progressive isnt "someone that makes progress."

I dont think A Progressive would embrace the Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention, etc. A Progressive wouldnt appoint Bernanke, Clapper, Alexander, etc. etc.

Sen Sanders, Sen Warren, and Sen Wyden are Progressives. Rep Alan Grayson is a Progressive. President Obama is not a Progressive. He appointed Penny Pritzker the female Mit Romney.

[cui bono]

135. Agreed. He put Wall Street in the WH ffs. And offered up SS cuts.

Not a progressive by a long shot.

You'd think DUers listened to and believed Rush Limbaugh when he was talking about how liberal Obama is.

[tridim]

161. I agree that those people are progressives...

But you still neglect to offer a definition of the term. I assume you think you know what it means, so go for it. It should be real easy with the tiny group you have ID'ed.

Ironically, Obama has made more progress to the left than all of them combined. See gay rights, for instance.

President Obama is a progressive Democrat because he moves democratic and human rights ideas forward like no one else.

[cui bono]

134. Playing word games on message boards isn't progressive. n/t

[tridim]

162. I guess you don't want to answer either.

Do you say that to everyone who asks a relevant question?

[rhett o rick]

209. Why dont you try making statements instead of asking questions? Dont be afraid to

take a stand and actually commit yourself instead of insinuation via question.

[Dragonfli]

131. "New Democrat"ic Corporatists have been purposefully misapplying the label "progressive"

to corporate coddling right wing policies since as early as the founding of The Progressive Policy Institute (a haven for Heritage and Chamber of Commerce ideas with a false left spin since the eighties).

It is hardly a surprise that they are doing it now (still).

[brisas2k]

152. CIA officers

as a general rule, have never been progressive, have they?

just saying.

[cui bono]

133. Hey I would take that pragmatic progressive over the pragmatic centrist we have.

[SamYeager]

3. So who won?

I was wondering who won the pool on when the downer posts would show up again.

[11 Bravo]

9. The "when" may have been in question, but the "who" was a foregone conclusion.

[laundry_queen]

113. Not even here 10 days and you got a pool going. Impressive. nt

[cui bono]

136. Reality is a downer.

And will continue to be as long as attitudes such as yours, willfully ignoring the truth of the matter, continue.

[quinnox]

7. no way, we could do a hell of a lot better than Obama

A fire breathing progressive is sorely needed, and maybe the only hope to save America.

[cali]

19. I wouldn't characterize FDR as "fire breathing".

[jeff47]

56. Really?

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

[cali]

74. one- or ten- comments hardly weigh more than the thousands that

don't support that pov.

[jeff47]

78. Such as?

With thousands to pick from, you should be easily able to pick one or two.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

8. Pressure from the left

Richard Wolff goes on at some length in his talks about how FDR was pressured from the Left to take up the fight against the wealthy and corporations. Strong unions allied with the Communist party and two socialist parties and demanded that steps be taken. I also think about FDR's quote about "Now force me to do it". (Note that I don't know how accurate any of this actually is. I should look these things up....)

We don't have the left-wing movements in this era to push back effectively against corporate power. I wish it were otherwise. I like what Bernie Sanders has been saying, lately. Democrats need a unifying narrative, and economic justice may be the best candidate for that. Without such a unified goal, we readily collapse into factions or succumb to negativity, or get caught up in a short-sighted process of reacting to the endless situations our opponents keep creating. We need an overarching, unifying narrative of hope and progress. Maybe once we have one it will be possible to build enough momentum to restore an American Left with enough clout to pressure an Obama, a Hillary, or whomever into becoming an FDR.

[leftstreet]

16. +1 Without an actual Left, there will be no FDRs

Both parties will jockey for the privilege of defending the status quo, occasionally coughing up legislation to mitigate the disasters of privatizing and profiteering

[reddread]

91. not to mention squashing the "do gooders"

nobody needs those.

[laundry_queen]

115. How can there be an actual left

when the left is disparaged even on the largest liberal board on the web?

[cui bono]

137. Well, this isn't actually that liberal of a board. n/t

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

150. Unfortunatley not. Yet according to the TOS, it is supposed to be.

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

It's bad enough I have to hear RW crap everywhere else, but it's really annoying that there's so much of it here.

[brisas2k]

156. DU list of exceptions disqualifies all but blue-dog democrats.

"...Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like."

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

158. I disagree. The TOS excludes the most radical of the left, and there are really few of them in

existence, as far as I can tell. So,"extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like, " are not welcome.

However, the statement that "Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people," should exclude a lot of the rather un-liberal people we see posting up a storm around here lately.

[cui bono]

192. I totally agree. n/t

[cui bono]

138. Yes, we need a loud left. And yet there are attempts at every level to keep that from happening.

Be it pepper spray or divisive threads on message boards, they are well organized to try to keep us down.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

10. As I noted before,

everyone in the financial community knew this back in early 2009 when he appointed Geithner and then Geithner made that soggy speech of his where he announced that his major initiative to prevent another 2008 would be stress tests.
Martin Wolf column on this from 2009:

Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger...
What is needed? The answer is: focus and ferocity. If Mr Obama does not fix this crisis, all he hopes from his presidency will be lost. If he does, he can reshape the agenda. Hoping for the best is foolish. He should expect the worst and act accordingly.
Yet hoping for the best is what one sees in the stimulus programme and – so far as I can judge from Tuesday’s sketchy announcement by Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary – also in the new plans for fixing the banking system. I commented on the former last week. I would merely add that it is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years’ economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome.

The stress tests we had were at least better than Europe's, which were a complete and very bad joke. Obama and the folks he picks are technically competent at least. It would be better if they had been given the correct task to complete though.

[stevenleser]

11. We don't need FDR so much as the House and Senate that existed when FDR was President.

I'm not sure FDR would have fared so well under the congress we have had.

[leveymg]

29. We've had divided Gov't during most of the post-war era, yet things got done

in large part because the President and Democratic leaders in Congress were liberals or at least held onto core Democratic values. You seem to forget that Obama had a Democratic Senate and House for his first two years.

Periods of unified and divided Gov't:


Pres Sen House
1929–1931 R R R
1931-1933 R R D
1933–1935 D D D
1935–1937 D D D
1937–1939 D D D
1939–1941 D D D
1941–1943 D D D
1943–1945 D D D
1945–1947 D D D
1947-1949 D R R
1949–1951 D D D
1951–1953 D D D
1953–1955 R R R
1955-1957 R D D
1957-1959 R D D
1959-1961 R D D
1961–1963 D D D
1963–1965 D D D
1965–1967 D D D
1967–1969 D D D
1969-1971 R D D
1971-1973 R D D
1973-1975 R D D
1975-1977 R D D
1977–1979 D D D
1979–1981 D D D
1981-1983 R R D
1983-1985 R R D
1985-1987 R R D
1987-1989 R D D
1989-1991 R D D
1991-1993 R D D
1993–1995 D D D
1995-1997 D R R
1997-1999 D R R
1999-2001 D R R
2001-2003 R D* R
2003–2005 R R R
2005–2007 R R R
2007-2009 R D D
2009–2011 D D D
2011-2013 D D R
2013-2015 D D R

[stevenleser]

35. Things got done during this President's terms too. Just not FDR level, no one else has gotten FDR

level stuff done and when you see the composition of his senate and House of Representatives, you see why.

The OP was about FDR.

[leveymg]

44. We need another New Deal, and haven't gotten it under Obama.

Probably no President had such a mandate to be a transformational figure since FDR as Obama did in 2008 (and arguably when he was returned to office with virtually the same percentage 4 years later), and none has been so disappointing overall (on economic issues) to Progressives.

[stevenleser]

60. We wouldn't have gotten the original New Deal with this congress.

It's easy to pass Democratic legislation with a congress comprised of 75% Democrats in both houses.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

76. He did have the chance in 2009.

Naked Capitalism predicted the stimulus he went for was too small, would only let the economy muddle along as a result, AND would turn people off to the idea of stimulus.
The 2010 elections proved that prediction correct.
As for the banks, he needed to pass strong legislation to break them up and do as much as possible to bring back Glass-Steagall, and, most importantly of all by far, get a Federal level law against usury passed.
None of that happened.

[stevenleser]

95. No, he didn't. Just enough members of the Democratic Senate weren't interested. nt

[bvar22]

188. Seems like there are ALWAYS "just enough" to ensure the agenda of the 1%, doesn't it.

Didn't you think it was ironic last week when President Obama said Boehner
couldn't control his own caucus.

Obama says Speaker Boehner ‘can’t control his own caucus
http://greenecountydemocrat.com/?p=8370


White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda?

*They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

[cui bono]

193. Good info to file away for future use. Thanks! n/t

[joshcryer]

213. Um. The vote needed more than just Blanche Lincoln.

And Blanche Lincoln wasn't the only one opposed to the public option. It was also Kent Conrad, Tom Carper, Max Baucus, and Bill Nelson. Ironically both Lincoln and Baucus were for it before they were against it.

I've never seen such a ridiculous straw man. Then again, considering the source, I had to laugh (I knew who it was from the raw vitriol without even clicking on the link).

[SidDithers]

215. There's a great DU game one can play on their smartphone...

In mobile view, when you look at the list of threads in General Discussion, you can't see the name of the poster that posted the OP of the thread.

It's fun to try to guess who wrote the OP based on the OP title alone. With some threads, it's pretty easy, though it has gotten harder lately, now that Hannah is gone again.

Sid

[joshcryer]

216. I am familiar with this game.

It's not even that hard for me as Hannah's sock didn't get as many replies as her original incarnation.

There are some who post drama-OPs, who I don't think are trying the RW troll tactic, but generally, yeah, I can spot the Obama detractors, easily (and if anyone doesn't know, mobile view doesn't have rec's, at least not for me on Android + Opera; older phone here).

What's been most amusing to me is that they STFU'd up during the Obama / Democrat shutdown situation. They knew their unmitigated bullshit wouldn't sell. God, that was a week of pure DU bliss. My blood pressure in that time has never been lower. I try to keep this place united and point out the basic politics of a given situation, but it fails when crisis politics rules.

[bvar22]

219. Your reply is the classic Strawman.

Where did I say that ONLY Lincoln's vote was needed?
You made that shit up,
and then attacked your own fantasy.
GEE. That's so EASY even a fool can do it.

The Lincoln Democratic Primary was used as an irrefutable EXAMPLE .
Lincoln had ZERO chance of winning in the General Election, so there was absolutely NO REASON for the White House to interfere in that Democratic Primary under the excuse of "She was more electable."

I was on the ground in Arkansas, helping to give Obama what everybody said he needed,
"A Progressive Congress that would vote FOR his agenda,"
a Democrat who would vote FOR HealthCare.
A Democrat who would help LABOR and the Working Class.
We were winning too, until the last week of the Democratic Primary.

I had to watch the Oval Office Endorsement of Blanche Lincoln played 24/7 on the TV.
I had to watch the interviews with Bill Clinton as he told the Black Districts in East Arkansas to get out and help Blanche Lincoln, because she was helpful to the working people & poor in Arkansas.

"The Arkansas Democratic Primary was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass in The Primary until the White House stepped in

*Blanche had NO chance of winning the General in Arkansas

Guess what happened.
Our BIGGEST enemy to bring "change" to The Senate was NOT The "Obstructionist" Republicans.
NO!
Our BIGGEST enemy to bring "change" to The Senate was The Obama White House!

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda,
and Bill Clinton was dispatched on a Campaign Tour for Blanche around the state bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they threw their support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the answer was ridicule and insults to Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

Union Thugs take an ass whipping from time to time,
but we NEVER forget a Sucker Punch & WHO Threw it.[/font]

We have never gotten an explanation from the White House for WHY they saved DINO Lincoln, only ridicule and taunts, enthusiastically mimicked by those who blindly follow.

Walking away from that Primary, I heard many Pro-LABOR loyal Democratic Activists say,
"Looks like the White House would rather give that seat to a Big Business Republican than let a Pro-LABOR Democrat have a chance at it."
I found it difficult to argue with that conclusion.
Perhaps YOU can explain it to me?


The Lincoln Primary was a powerful EXAMPLE used to illustrate the point that Presidents have ENORMOUS power to pressure the members of their OWN Party .

I have never found the argument that Obama is a Weak & Ineffective President to be very helpful, and he has demonstrated that he is NOT weak & ineffective,
when he really wants something.

Why do you and so many here keep insisting that he is weak & ineffective, and can't control his own caucus?
Is it naivete?
Is it youth?
Is it inexperience?
Have you never watched a President get what he wants?
You should study LBJ.....or George W Bush.
Bush-the-Lesser NEVER had 60 votes in the Senate, and yet got almost everything he wanted.



Here is a link that explains "Strawman".
If you go study it, you can avoid future public embarrassment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No Charge.

[leveymg]

214. +1 The electoral game is rigged, and the casino owners almost always win.

[joshcryer]

212. As a mere technicality, he did.

He just didn't lead that way and I realize the possibility of a New New Deal passing back then was very very slim.

But we must remember that Obama got elected by a huge number and had millions come to his inauguration.

In his inauguration speech he should've proposed his New New Deal. It would're required shedding his center-right policies as far as resource exploitation and health care.

[brisas2k]

157. there was also a bogeyman needed, and FDR got it.

The "threat of bolshevism" was a reality back during those days.

It forced more than one corporate backer to yield.

We don't have that today. We have a different bogeyman, invented to push us to the far-right.

Can't blame it on no one but us. Corporate officers have done their homework.

[arely staircase]

92. im sure that would sail right throug the house

Maybe Gohmert could sponsor it
.

[stevenleser]

105. This reality gap some have is pretty stunning really...

I dont want to accuse people of being delusional but at some point...

[babylonsister]

108. I for one blame the GOP, too!

[joshcryer]

211. It was like 39 days when Obama had the 60 vote majority in the Senate.

And that includes Lieberman.

Obama never had FDR level of unanimous support.

[treestar]

127. +1 billion

It's getting old pitting Obama against long ago white Presidents who had big D majorities and finding Obama lacking. Purely divisive with no good purpose.

[NYC Liberal]

13. FDR was criticized by the left in his day as not liberal enough,

too in bed with the banks, etc. They wanted to replace him in 1936 or 1940 with someone they felt was more of a "true" liberal. He also "caved" to Southern conservatives on civil rights issues.

FDR wasn't perfect either. Obama is exactly the president we need right now.

[datasuspect]

15. FDR was considered a class traitor

to his own class.

[NYC Liberal]

21. Yes by reasonable people. There was a not insignificant

group on the left who considered him too moderate/centrist and wanted a more liberal candidate to replace him.

[zipplewrath]

43. FDR wasn't FDR

There's always the man and the legend, and even in FDR's case there's as much legend as man. Comparing what FDR actually did at the time, to what Obama actually did at the time, and the early FDR beats him hands down. But if you compare the unfavorable things FDR did at the time, with the unfavorable things that Obama has done, it isn't so clear. The vast majority of things Obama has done really fall into the "what he didn't do" category. Where as FDR has a string of "actions he actually took" category. FDR's attempts at court packing probably aren't his finest hour. And one can argue that his Japanese policies were misguided. His lend lease and related support were probably unconstitutional, or at least unsupported by existing law.

Alternately, it isn't clear at this point that FDR's cabinet appointments were nearly as disappointing as Obama's have been. And one would be hard pressed to list the GOP inspired legislation that FDR passed.

[cali]

23. lol. FDR was reviled by the moneyed classes.

[NYC Liberal]

34. Yes he was. And your point is?

The "moneyed class" HATES Obama. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat him last year and install one of their own.

[Zorra]

14. No offense to Mrs. Obama, but the Prez doesn't have an outspoken radical liberal

pistol whipping firecracker like Eleanor Roosevelt to shame hound him into submission to what we all know is the wise and noble progressive very best agenda for the well being of humanity.

[KoKo]

103. ABSOLUTELY! I held High Hopes for MICHELLE to be "Eleanor Roosevelt"

And there was some of her that COULD HAVE BEEN!

Without an ELEANOR....and SOCIALIST VOICES....Obama is Left with the Left he Came in With. Which is "Center for American Progress" and Will Marshall's Clinton Group of
"Progressives for Democracy" which seems to have recently gotten a big INFUSION of FUNDING to put their "THIRD WAY/TRADE DEAL/DE-REGULATION" Propaganda out there to Flood the NETROOTS.

LEFTY DEMs...Read This and WEEP! The Doctrine of the "Progressive Policy Institute" in Cahoots with "Clinton Global Initiative" It's an Eye Opener about Democratic Policy going forward.

REAL DEMS are DEVASTATED..!

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/about/

[Hekate]

145. On what planet would this even have been possible? The black FLOTUS...

...carrying on as you describe? You really, truly had "high hopes"? Wow.

[Zorra]

185. Yeh. We need to make a focused, sustained effort at rooting out the PPI/Third Way

corporatists who are too shallow, myopic, and above all greed motivated, to care about the damage they are doing to the Democratic party, the country, democracy, humanity, and the planet.

Sure, they sometimes toss us a crumb and support constructive social policies, and that's a good thing, but this is only when constructive and necessary social policies don't conflict with the needs and desires of the insatiable global commercial interests of the 1%.

The truth is, we need to get all the fucking business people out of running our party and government because they are too damn selfish and shallow to see beyond the dollar signs on the money colored lenses of their glasses, and they flat out can't govern worth a shit. Republicans have already proven that over and over and over since the end of the Civil War.

Life is more than money, and the well being of human beings is far more important than a bunch of egotistical hoarders playing their ego driven games of business as usual while the rest of humanity suffers from it.

While Banksters fiddle, Fukushima burns.

Brazil’s assault on indigenous rights

Protests are being held across Brazil and the world this week against attempts by the Brazilian government to water down indigenous peoples’ constitutional rights in the name of the country’s push for industrialization and ‘development’.
snip---
Several new projects are under discussion which, if passed into law, would drastically weaken indigenous peoples’ control over their lands and severely threaten the survival of many of Brazil’s tribes, including highly vulnerable uncontacted Indians.

A proposed constitutional amendment would give Brazil’s Congress – heavily influenced by the anti-indigenous farming lobby – the power to participate in the demarcation of indigenous lands. A draft bill under discussion would open up indigenous land for army bases, mining, dams and other industrial projects, and another would open up indigenous reserves to large-scale mining for the first time.

These changes would prove disastrous for Brazil’s tribes such as the Guarani, who already suffer extreme levels of violence by local ranchers and who are pushing for their ancestral land to be returned to them; and the Awá, who have become known as Earth’s most threatened tribe because of the large-scale invasion and destruction of their forest.

[KoKo]

206. Recommend!

[ecstatic]

20. Did FDR have a teabagger controlled congress? nt

[uponit7771]

31. No, FDR STARTED with an 83% progressive congress and had an avg of 70% throughout terms in office

[NYC Liberal]

39. Something that is conveniently forgotten.

He also didn't have a TV channel dedicated to spreading right-wing propaganda against him 24/7.

[geek tragedy]

22. I love how people assume that the major difference between

FDR's and Obama's level of successes are a function of their relative awesomeness as presidents, while completely ignoring their relative political coalitions and this thing called "Congress."

Would FDR have even been elected in modern USA? A rich, elitist patrician from New York state?

Would he have been able to ram an agenda through a Senate where a minority was able to block almost all legislation viathe filibuster, or where he needed to get the vote of Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe LIEberman on every single vote?

[cali]

26. I'm not ignoring Congress- it's in the op in my reference to other politicians

but the role that leadership and the bully pulpit play are significant. You want to pretend that it's no such thing.

[pnwmom]

46. FDR couldn't have led the tea party Congress. No way. n/t

[geek tragedy]

53. When FDR faced filibusters, care to guess whether he:

a) showed leadership, used the bully pulpit, and won the day; or

b) caved and let the filibustering side win?

People who talk about 'leadership' and 'bully pulpit' are talking about biography and personality, not policy.

The bully pulpit has not passed a single piece of legislation in US history.

[stevenleser]

57. The bully pulpit matters much less now than it once did. The name should probably be changed.

70 years ago, when the President (like FDR) made a speech, it was a big deal. The limited media that existed all covered it. No one's voice had even a small percentage of the reach of his words. Each Presidential speech was a big deal for days if not weeks.

Today, the President competes with dozens of National opinion news media on TV, the Internet, etc. Within hours of each Presidential speech, tens of millions of people have watched a half dozen cable news shows where well known pundits and their guests analyze, dissect, and in some cases attack and demagogue every sentence he uttered.

These days, 24 hours after a Presidential speech, it's old news, 48 hours later, the public barely remembers it.

That's no bully pulpit.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

97. You're just not being very realistic. Pretty typical

Of "my way or the highway" liberal Democrats. The reason that Dems only controlled WH for 4 years out of 20 from 69 to 93 was the unflinching "new left" who did stuff like floor fights at Dem convention in 1980 with a sitting Dem president.

[leftstreet]

33. Organized labor & a political left had power then

'Congress' was under pressure, regardless of their party affiliations

[geek tragedy]

54. Southern white racists voted Democratic back then.

Made things considerably easier for Democratic presidents.

[leftstreet]

62. That has nothing to do with what I said n/t

[bluestate10]

111. What. Reality doesn't matter. If President Obama was to be the equivalent of FDR, he would have

to buy off the tea party and look the other way while the tea party brutalized Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, ect. Racists democrats gave FDR his overwhelming numbers, and to reward them and keep them voting with him, FDR ignored some of the grossest activity outside of slavery.

[cali]

36. because I don't drool with adoration? fuck that.

I don't hate Obama but I don't think he's this splendid Progressive leader.

that doesn't make me a troll, trumad. and yeah, i know fucking damn well that's what you think. Now you're a little bit more careful.

You hardly rate high on my list of intelligent, reflective duers.

[11 Bravo]

75. Got it. It's not adoration, you drool with disdain. Either way, you really need to wipe your chin.

[rbrnmw]

51. amen trumad

[uponit7771]

25. ******OBAMA NEEDS AN FDR CONGRESS!!!********* FDR had 70% progressives, Obama does NOT

[zipplewrath]

47. Then he should stop working against one

If Obama wants a FDR congress, he should stop supporting folks like Lincoln and Specter in the primaries.

[Jim Lane]

77. Absolutely, very important point, and I'll add one.

If the actions of the top elected Democrat were more forcefully progressive, then he'd also help motivate more people to show up and vote, such as in the midterms.

Bernie gives the example of the deal with Big Pharma over the ACA (which, in the posts I've read so far in this thread, none of the Obama apologists want to dispute). Currently we have his willingness to implement chained CPI. He could and should be doing a better job of drawing the line between his goals and those of the Republicans.

I've also heard the complaint that he didn't do enough to help downticket Dems in his own campaigns and especially in 2010, but I'm not familiar with the details of what he did or didn't do, so I can't assess that.

Our best hope is that this latest fiasco has finally pissed him off and that he'll make a major effort in 2014. Along with channeling FDR, maybe he needs a bit of Truman, who famously campaigned against the "do-nothing" 80th Congress in 1948.

And, yes, we all know that Obama is way, way better than Romney or McCain would have been. I'd guess that just about every DUer who's said anything remotely negative about Obama nevertheless voted for him. Anyone who wants to defend his deal with Big Pharma should try to address the merits instead of just saying Obama is better than the Republicans.

[uponit7771]

99. Obama is working Against an 83% dem congress!!?!?!?!? Come on people!!!

[zipplewrath]

165. Against a progressive congress

Over the years, after all of the endorsements of conservative democrats over (slightly) more progressive democrats in primaries, not to mention his moderate republican leanings (something he expressed himself) I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't particularly like a more progressive congress. He'd probably like a vastly less obstinate congress as well, not to mention a congress much closer to Dole than Cruz. A progressive congress would probably scare the bajeebers out of him, especially when they started closing down his NSA programs, and going after torturers.

[uponit7771]

168. You mean the congress that filibustered dem measures over 300 times is progressive?! You're saying

... that there are enough progressive dems that are running !?!?!?

No seriously, stay away from winger sights and faux news they are the only ones peddeling anything like Obama = Bush in ANY FORM

[zipplewrath]

169. You're projecting

I'm saying that back in 2010, Obama preferred much more conservative democrats over progressive ones, and even back them over progressive democrats in primaries. Obama has also shown a tendency to prefer to work with, and advance the efforts of conservative demcrats over that of more progressive demcrats. He's shown a preference for GOP Sec Def's over democratic ones. I said that a call for us to work to elect more progressive democrats would be much easier if Obama wouldn't campaign against them in the primaries.

[uponit7771]

174. I don't agree with Obama preferred much more conservative democrats at all, please show proof of thi

... of this if available.

I don't see that now nor then...

I'm not projecting, the "Obama = off shoot of Bush" is a meme that gets propounded by putting him close to conservative ideals or portraying Obama as a near conservative even though the much larger legislation in a multitude of areas are mid to far left.

Not perfect left but again, no president has been

[zipplewrath]

180. Specter and Lincoln

He backed Specter and Lincoln in primaries over (slightly) more progressive competitors. At the very least he could have stayed out until the general, especially in Specter's case.

His cabinet has been full of more conservative democrats, not to mention 2 GOP Sec Defs.

His original Chief of Staff was infamous for his actions as the head of the DCCC to prevent more progressive candidates from even running in primaries.

When working on the ACA, he avoided the participation of Dean at all, never even tried to change the minds of the conservatives who opposed critical aspects of his legislation (Lieberman said the White House never even called him) but Obama got on a plane and flew to Kucinch's district to campaign for the ACA at the end to try to get it passed.

Obama described himself as closer to a moderate republican of a decade or so ago.

[bornskeptic]

173. Nonsense! Lincoln and Specter voted for all his major legislation.

Both voted for the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act, and Dodd-Frank. To not support them would have been ethically suspect and politically stupid. Neither Lincoln or Halter had any chance of winning the general election in Arkansas in 2010, so I don't know how Obama could have made a difference there. But Specter probably would have done better than Sestsk, and he might have won. Enabling people like Toomey is no way to get a progressive Congress.

[zipplewrath]

177. Can't have it both ways

One can't call for voting for a more progressive congress, and then explain why we shouldn't elect more progressive members in the primaries.

[NYC_SKP]

94. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Pretzel_Warrior]

98. Facts ate not appreciated in ODS diatribe threads

[Bonobo]

141. Obama vetoes: 4. FDR vetoes: 635 nt

[Hekate]

146. Obama terms in office: 2. FDR terms: almost 4.

FDR: Congress and country united to battle Great Depression, then really united to battle WWII

Obama: congress hopelessly deadlocked, country beleaguered by FOX, Democrats still like Obama a lot, Tea Party calls for his assassination

Obama: Congress vows to pass NOTHING, vows to obstruct everything

[The Wielding Truth]

101. ++++

[bluestate10]

112. You are wrong, most of FDR's support came from racists from all parts of the country. Those

racists voted for and with FDR as long as FDR didn't do much for Black people, or Negroes as Blacks were known at that time.

[uponit7771]

123. Umm, no... progressive doesn't equal perfect now and does equal perfect then and that's what's

...wrong with the purist progs and fudr; they both want perfection and if they don't get it they bash.

FDR didn't want to make any part of wwii about jewish people either

[BluegrassStateBlues]

27. President Obama is far superior to his critics... even the ones on the left. nt

[ProSense]

28. Actually,

the health care law increased the Medicaid drug rebate percentage to 23.1 percent.

http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

The President has proposed the same rate for Medicare (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043 ), which would save even more than the Senate proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725266), $164 billion to $141 billion, respectively.

Reposting:

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers

Posted by Sarah Kliff

Brad wrote earlier this week about how pharmaceutical companies were one of the biggest losers in President Obama’s budget. This BGov graph shows how much, exactly, they’re losing by — a lot.



The Obama budget cuts for pharmaceuticals work out to $164 billion, just under half the total health-care budget cuts the president is seeking.

Most of this grows out of the White House proposal to change the way Medicare pays for drugs to make it look more like the Medicaid program...Medicaid gets a great deal on drugs: Pharmaceutical companies must sell prescriptions to the entitlement program at the very best price they offer private insurance plans, or 23.1 percent lower than the average price...The Office of the Inspector General at Health and Human Services estimates that the provision has reduced Medicaid spending on drugs by 45 percent.

Medicare Part D, which covers prescriptions for seniors, does have the power to negotiate with drug companies. But that same OIG report found that that tends to lead to smaller discounts: 19 percent vs. the 45 percent reduction that Medicaid receives.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/12/obama-budget-is-a-disaster-for-drugmakers/

[cali]

37. yes, indeed. I'll take your propaganda over Bernie's facts. NOT.

[ProSense]

40. What the hell are you talking about?

Fact: The health care law increased the Medicaid rebate.

Fact: The President's budget proposed the same formula for Medicare.

Fact: The savings is about $20 billion more than the Senate proposal.

Dispute that.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

45. Don't destroy them with facts.

Heritage will have to bring them in for repair.

[rhett o rick]

143. But in fact Heritage applauds the President's stand on the NSA. Heritage loves

Generals Clapper and Alexander. Heritage loves Bernanke, Geitner and Summers. Heritage really loves Penny Pritzker. Heritage loves the Presidents stand on the Patriot Act and domestic spying and indefinite detention. The left loves none of those things, yet you try to intimate that the left associates with Heritage? Looks to me like Heritage loves them some centrists Democrats.

[zipplewrath]

58. An error in that

Medicare Part D can't negotiate. It was corrected in a later version of the blog. Also, the medicare aspect is a proposal, that isn't yet law and wasn't part of the ACA. And all of this is about people on medicare and medicaid, not on any of the other plans. The drug companies have been doing very well, and are anticipated to continue to do well, which is why their stock prices continue to rise.

As with most of the rest of the ACA, it does alot about insurance costs, and not much about the actual costs of health care, especially the continued rate of inflation of those costs.

[ProSense]

61. "Medicare Part D can't negotiate."

Which is the reason the proposal to apply the Medicaid formula increase that's part of ACA to Medicare is part of the President's proposal.

[zipplewrath]

79. So to summarize

Medicaid can't negotiate for lower drug prices, by leveraging the massive size of the program, but are limited to the discounts that for profit companies negotiate.
Under the ACA Medicare doesn't even have those prices in place.

The ACA did nothing to lower the prices of drugs to the mandated plans that are being sold through the exchanges.

People getting employer based drug plans will continue to see the rate of price increases they've experienced all along.

[ProSense]

81. What the hell? Medicaid is not Medicare. n/t

[zipplewrath]

82. And water is not dirt

What is your point?

Medicaid isn't allowed to negotiate drug prices.
Medicare isn't allowed to negotiate drug prices.
The cost of drugs to medicaid isn't passed on to the Medicare program, although Obama subsequently proposed that they do so, but it has not passed yet (not even close).

None of this helps the exchanges or employer based plans at all.

[ProSense]

84. It's called a rebate.

Let me repeat it so you can read it again:

The health care law increased the Medicaid drug rebate percentage to 23.1 percent.

http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

The President has proposed the same rate for Medicare (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043 ), which would save even more than the Senate proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725266), $164 billion to $141 billion, respectively.

http://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/SMDL/downloads/SMD10006.pdf

[zipplewrath]

166. So what was wrong with my summary? nt

[pnwmom]

30. What we need is a different House. FDR wouldn't have been able

to work with this one, either.

[uponit7771]

32. +1, FDR had an 75% avg dem house throughout his term(s)

[randome]

38. A House that's willing to piss away 24 billion dollars and throw people out of work.

You're right, FDR did not have that kind of opposition.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

128. Even opposition Houses wouldn't have pulled the shutdown debt default

crap in FDRs day. There was a bottom line below which they would not sink.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

42. And what we have now is Democratic Party unity.

Some want us to be as fractured as the GOP it seems.

Why? Who knows.

[Hekate]

48. Send him the Congress FDR had, to balance the scales. The GOP didn't shut down the gov't then

Did they?

[rbrnmw]

49. President Obama is good and decent man and I love him

Why all the negative posts about President Obama Cali?

[Orrex]

50. You're right--Obama is running waaaaay behind on interring Japanese Americans.

[Puzzledtraveller]

52. We still have time, despair not!

[Hekate]

148. He just needs two more terms and a World War

I'm sure he could get those FEMA camps up and running.

You know what just gobsmacks me?

Plenty of people here are only too happy to tear the legacy of FDR a new one, until they need him to bludgeon Obama with. Then all of a sudden the great man (and he was certainly that) is no longer a mere mortal -- he's Superman! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!

[MineralMan]

59. Damn right. When are we going to send Americans of some national heritage

to internment camps again? Sheesh! You'd think the President could get that right.

And what about my Chained CPI? The President has been promising that for years, now, and I still don't have it.

And where are the drones he promised to send over my city?

FDR would have gotten those done, dammit!

[bluestate10]

116. I find it truly amazing how a politician who was full of warts become lionized with time.

The next time some on DU criticize the rising popularity of GE Bush, I am going to puke on my keyboard. GW Bush is profiting from the very same dynamic that now makes FDR look like a infallible superman, time.

[Number23]

125. These same folks will be doing the same thing with Obama in 20 years.

When they start up the "Obama was a corporatist, right wing fascist" bullshit and their grandkids look at them like they've lost their minds, oh BELIEVE me, the story will quickly morph into "Oh, but how I LOVED the man!"

The fact that this thread is even sitting in GD on October 22, 2013 is astonishing. This exact same tired spiel has been posted a hundred different ways for at least the last five years and it's been tedious and unproductive every damn time. Just like the president said, "if you don't like a president or a policy, then WIN AN ELECTION." More than just the Tea Baggers need to learn that lesson.

[Hekate]

147. +1 Couldn't have said it better

[ProSense]

170. It's hilarious that the biggest feel-good some can take away is Obama is not FDR

I mean, look at the qoute in the OP. What the hell relevance is that to such a comparison, especially given the President has three years left in office, and coming on the verge of more than 8 million people (half of the 17 million) becoming eligible for free health care.

LOL!

[bravenak]

176. +a billion

This is the never ending story.

[MineralMan]

167. FDR has the benefit of time. In fact, there are very few

left who experienced his presidency as adults. Very few, indeed. So, much is lost in our knowledge of his presidency.

He's just a misty vision from the past, really.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

63. Many historians believe FDR saved capitalism.

There was so much poverty during the Depression that various parties and organizations that espoused socialism or communism were starting to take root. FDR's success (with the help of a Democratic Congress, which we do not have now) in getting progressive legislation enacted that helped bring many people out of desperate poverty, he was able to forestall the rise of more left-wing groups, ensuring the survival of a sort of regulated capitalism. That's the theory, anyhow, FWIW. For all the good he did, FDR was still a committed capitalist.

[bvar22]

64. More than a Superman to lead us, we NEED a revival of traditional Democratic Values.

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens."
FDR, State of the Union Address, 1944

Please note that FDR specified the above as Basic Human Rights to be protected and administered by our Government of the People,
and NOT as commodities to be SOLD to Americans by private Corporations.
(That is a traditional Republican Value).

There was a time in my memory when voting FOR The Democrat
was voting FOR that above Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true,
and most are too young to remember the Working Class Democratic party Values that built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the World has ever seen.


I would LOVE to be able to vote for THOSE values again.


--bvar22
a mainstream-center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[russspeakeasy]

66. Well done ! Thanks for the post.

[sabrina 1]

69. 'Basic Human Rights, not commodities to be sold'. Excellent

example of what we have lost as Democrats. I believe the changes began when the DLC wormed its Centrist, Profit-Before-People, Reagan supporting, snake oil policies into the Dem Party, fooling some by adapting a few Dem policies while pushing the Party further and further to the Right.

Now it's up to us to make sure they don't gain any more power within the Party and stop supporting their candidates while pushing Progressives with the time and money we've been directing to candidates who do not represent us at all.

[truedelphi]

73. Kudos for this great post! n/t

[WillyT]

104. + 1,000,000,000... And, THAT Shows You How Far To The Right We've Moved Since Those Days...

Also... remember that the American "Right", tried to have him assassinated.

[cui bono]

139. +1

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

153. Any minute now you'll get flamed for calling these things "rights.' Here on a supposedly liberal

discussion board I have seen such BS repeatedly.

"If I people get things handed to them, they'll never work!!"

"I've had to fight for everything I have. Why should someone get health care if they can't afford it??!!"

Yet, they have no objection to the wealthy getting more wealth handed to them.

[grantcart]

65. You always seem to be searching for a reason to be sad.

Roosevelt IMO was the greatest President simply because he was fighting on so many fronts at the same time.

This sentimental remembrance of him however is specious at best.

Besides the issue of Executive Order 9066 and the entire question of a double standard on the civil liberties issue http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3215257 is the handling of the economy.

From the time that he was elected until March when he was sworn in FDR made no public announcements of policy. Hoover had even offered to pass any legislation FDR requested during the lame duck session.

His failure to act as President Elect and the strategic decision to consolidate power for a big blow out 100 days may look good after the fact but the reality is that it caused thousands of banks to disappear, and millions of people to lose their savings and jobs during those 5 months.

Fortunately President Obama didn't follow this particular FDR technique and the Great Recession never became the Second Great Depression.

Although facts have never played a significant factor in your unending effort to diminish the accomplishments of the President.

[Old and In the Way]

203. Very interesting post.

People can be quite selective about which facts they wish to use to make their points. To compare Obama to FDR is a joke...there are way too many external variables to account for to even begin to make a comparison between the 2.

I'm certainly not happy with everything Obama has done. I wish Reid had nuke'd the filibuster rules in the new Congress of 2013.

But I at least know where these guys are coming from and what they have to deal with in this Congress. Anonymous posters on a website? Who really knows what their agenda is? If I was going to join FR to have fun and disrupt, I'd certainly take on the personna of the most racist, reactionary asshole on their board and proceed to attack everyone there by questioning their "commitment" to the cause. Why wouldn't that also happen, in reverse, here?

[MineralMan]

71. "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

Shakespeare wrote that.

"I don't hate President Obama and maybe he's the best we can hope for in this day and age."

You wrote that.

They are related.

[zipplewrath]

83. Is he dead?

I think you're stretching the metaphor a bit. Not to mention conflating fiction with reality.

[cali]

88. and? you remind me of nothing so much as a slow boiled frog.

and not only you, by any means.

[reddread]

93. frog soup

with a side of Sheep's Head Broth

http://www.cooks.com/recipe/si2vr558/sheeps-head-broth.html

[MineralMan]

175. Ah, sheep's heads. I haven't seen one of those

since I was a child in California. There was a Hispanic meat market in my small town that often had sheep's heads in the front window cooler. I found that fascinating, and asked my mother how they would be cooked. "Soup," she said. A few years later, I had some of that soup at a friend's house. Delicious.

Since then, I've eaten a steer's head (Mexical barbacoa) and a boar's head (England), along with fish head soup (Chinese) and Halibut cheeks (Alaska). I'm still a big fan of headcheese (Scandinavian style), and there's a deli near me that has it, made the old-fashioned way. In olden times, people ate the entire animal. It's all good, and often very tasty.

I've never eaten frog soup, though, although I've eaten frogs' legs a number of times.

Thanks for the cooking post.

[rhett o rick]

142. The water doesnt have to come to a boil slowly if the frog is in denial. Just sayin. nm

[truedelphi]

72. Puzzled as to why someone who has handed our economy over to the Biggest of the Bankers

Could be considered "decent." But I guess, if he doesn't realize that is what he has done, then that would explain it.

And one reason we don't have a shot at having a FDR type in elected offices is on account of how Obama's good buddy and former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, spent so much time out on the road, circa 2005 to 2008.

Rahm's whole goal at that point in time was to be making sure that the more progressive Democrats who tried to run as candidates were made pariahs by their local Democratic leaders. The party's money went to the more conservative types.

[pansypoo53219]

80. FDR was born rich + he knew many rich were AWFUL humans.

[bvar22]

86. I guess Personal Attacks and snarky attempts to discredit the messenger...

... are now considered acceptable substitutions for valid debate and intelligent discussion at DU.

DU used to be known as a premier website for intelligent discussion and debate,
but much like FDR's New Deal, that is all but gone now,
with the remaining vestiges under attack.

Things like this thread make me glad I'm old.
I am deeply embarrassed by the World, the Nation, and the Corporate Friendly, Anti-LABOR, Free Trading, Privatizing, "New Democrat" Centrist Party we are leaving to the young.
Good Luck to you all.

[font size=3]CENTRISM....because its so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do.[/font]


---bvar22
Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat for 46 years,
now labeled a "Fringe Leftist" in the "New Democrat" Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[cali]

87. thank you bvar. I won't shut up

I am never hateful toward the President, but I refuse to ignore reality.

[840high]

124. Good. I live reality.

[WillyT]

118. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[dflprincess]

121. Amen! nt

[laundry_queen]

122. +1 nt

[Rex]

89. Wow, tough crowd!

Why can't you just lay down for Fearless Leader? Why must you resist, even a little? Succumb to peer pressure and get it over with! Take the red pill!

[Brigid]

100. I think Obama has been pretty amazing . . .

Considering what he has had to deal with. I like that he at long last is appearing to lose patience with the clown circus we laughingly call Congress. I don't know why that took so long.

However, I am not sure that Obama fully appreciates how hostile the 1% is to the rest of us. I am not sure that he understands that the 1% views the rest of us as disposable things existing only to be used by them.

Back more than a century ago, the 1% of the day became concerned about a certain up and coming young politician named Theodore Roosevelt, who was already beginning to challenge them. They conspired to get McKinley to choose Roosevelt as his running mate for his second term. McKinley was safely in their pocket, but they wanted Roosevelt out of the way. Back then, Vice Presidents wielded little power, and were almost never heard from again. To their absolute horror, something happened that they never dreamed of: McKinley was assassinated, and Roosevelt became President. As Roosevelt continued to challenge them, J. P. Morgan sent to him and said something to the effect of, "If there's a problem, why didn't you send your people to my people and we could work it out?" That's the ptoblem with you capitalists, Roosevelt replied. You don't understand that you are just capitalists. I am not just another rival industrialist I was elected to serve the people. And Roosevelt was a Republican.

[vaberella]

106. Let's think on this...did FDR make the changes he made on his own or with others?

Because my historical knowledge says that there was a Senate and a House he was working with. We cannot fully determine if the President is not very progressive or if he is working under the conditions of dealing with the other side so he adds enough conservative conditions in order to get things done.

If we decide we want to take on FDR...I think we would then need the conditions he was working under. FDR was not working along. Republicans and Democrats came together on the issues in order to look out for the betterment of America. Unfortunately, Obama has a faction of the party that is inherently against him, either due to race or due to political beliefs. Either of which are not the case for FDR. Then Obama has to work under those conditions to still try to keep the government functioning. Because guess what...we gave him these people to work with.

Do I think that Bernie Sanders doesn't know what he's talking about? Hardly, I think Bernie is not taking everything under consideration and you combining with FDR makes your point a solvent. Too simplistic a thought for an extremely complex situation.

[bluestate10]

107. Ahhhh, the romanticized FDR. A bit like the romanticized Reagan for the right.

FDR did make some good policy, but he was pushed to do those changes. FDR really expected Americans to pay into Social Security and die before collecting a dime, plus he didn't want men to draw benefits at all. FDR looked the other way while southern racists kept the military segregated while lynching innocent Black people. Ahhh, the romanticized FDR surely looks better that the blemished real FDR.

[struggle4progress]

110. Want America to move towards the progressive side? Get out there and start workin on it!

If yer findin yerself thinkin "Somebody rilly oughta do somethin about this!" stop to ask yourself "Hmmm! Is there anybody anywhere I can force to do somethin about this?"

The answer's prolly gonna come to ya, if ya think about it just a moment

[polichick]

117. We need a populist prez but our corporate parties aren't primarily about the people...

...so, yes, Pres. Obama is the best we'll get until the people wake up.

[orpupilofnature57]

119. FDR wasn't FDR and I was taught to idolize him, He was Joe Montana

He was surrounded by some of the brightest, courageous people, tempered by the ' Great Depression ' and threatened by the ' Great Business Plot ' which was thwarted by my avatar Smedley Butler who delayed the 1% and their enslavement for 600% profit program .
FDR fought the greedy villains of his day and won, brought us out of the depression, and beat hitler, in a world that Loved and cooperated with him, President Obama has been put in a corner before he was ever elected. War, Tax Breaks, and Bailouts
gave the wealthy a no lose situation, and SCOTUS iced the cake so that the management of this country is totally in the hands of the rich .

[treestar]

126. We need a Democratic Congress nt

[BlueToTheBone]

129. We don't need another white man in power

who may have been more powerful than the other white men in power. We need as a country and world a way to live together and we have skillful man who is working hard to keep us all from sinking into a wasteland. Of course there are day to day realities, but with all the hoopla about his weaknesses, he seems like a strong man.

Have you learned to play chess at all? It's an interesting way to understand how far you can see. My father taught me to play when I was 3 and I keep my board set up. It's always enlightening to see one's own blindnesses.

[MannyGoldstein]

130. Obama vetoes: 4. FDR vetoes: 635

http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

One per year vs. one per week.

At least Obama and FDR share this: they both want to be known for their actions on Social Security.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

132. FDR is dead...

If you're waiting for a savior, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Obama is just fine with me.

[Enthusiast]

149. Kicked and Recommended!

I am with you, cali.

[RBInMaine]

151. FDR had an all-Democratic Congress. Remember that. He is only ONE branch of government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

154. damn Cali, I bet you were the kid that told the other kids that there is no such thing as Santa

Claus. Come on Cali, haven't you heard of suspension of disbelief? We can pretend can't we? You're not fun!

[cali]

164. Nope. I was a big Santa fan even when I knew it wasn't true

but I'm no kid anymore and believing that democrats are all good is dangerous.

[PeteSelman]

155. 2009 was the opportunity.

And he and the Senate punted. The President did not push for what we really needed and the bought off Senators nixed everything that was even half decent. We needed a major pendulum swing back toward the People and we got more of the same Third Way bullshit.

Speaker Pelosi and the House did a pretty good job though.

[bvar22]

190. and THAT kind of opportunity comes around once in a generation.

[font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]



Thats my problem with Centrists.
They agree with Republicans too often.
When Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Democrats are labeled "The Far left",
WHO is really doing the talking?


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[davidpdx]

160. I think you place too much at the feet of Obama and don't look at the other factors

Politics has become more polarizing over the last 20 years, mass media and the internet have changed how news and opinions spread, and we as a party aren't holding the majority in both chambers of Congress.

[aidendaniel]

163. President Obama is a decent man. He's no FDR and we sorely need an FDR

Presumably Obama didn't know the context of his quotation from FDR. But it seems inadvertently fitting that Obama quoted not the FDR who fought Hitler but the FDR of the 1930s. As it happens, the day after the San Diego speech, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. Italian troops repeatedly and brazenly used poison gas in that conflict. The world, including of course the U.S., expressed "deep concern"—but did nothing.

[gopiscrap]

172. welcome to DU

[Orsino]

171. If Americans had been demanding an FDR, our president would have become one.

Tepid public support for strengthening our social safety net is not the way to discover our president's hidden reserves of intestinal fortitude. I think we have a president who's a little better than we deserve, though not as good as we desperately need.

Recall that it took a depression to empower FDR's best efforts.

[bvar22]

205. Tepid Public Support?

On January 21, 2009, newly inaugurated President Obama had an overwhelming Popular Victory, and a HUGE MANDATE for "CHANGE" from the American People.

[font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]


*Maybe if he hadn't promoted and defended the No Strings Attached Bailouts,
or used the Bully Pulpit to DEFEND the gluttonous "Bonuses" of the Wall Street Criminals, the 99% would still have his back?

*Maybe if he had called on his ARMY for CHANGE to help him Reform Health Care during Teabagger Summer instead of abandoning the field to Fox News, and trying to make The Republicans HAPPY,
his ARMY wouldn't have felt abandoned, forgotten, and betrayed?

*Maybe if President Obama had publicly supported American's RIGHT for peaceful assembly and protest, and publicly called for the Police to exercise restraint and respect for Americans exercising their Constitutional Rights during OWS,
not so many would be saying "same as the Old Boss?

*Maybe if President Obama had fought as hard for a Public Option as he did for a War in Syria, the 99% would see him as a Fighter for the Working Class?

*Maybe if he had gone immediately to bat for Raising Taxes on the RICH instead of extending the ruinous Bush Tax Cuts, he could have maintained his overwhelming Popular Support?

*Maybe if he had "immediately" re-negotiated NAFTA like he promised,
UNIONS would be gladly carrying his water?

*Maybe if he had taken to The Bully Pulpit stumping to "make EFCA the Law of the Land" (like he promised to UNION crowds), the Working Class would have a hero?

"Tepid Public Support for strengthening our social safety net is not the way to discover our president's hidden reserves of intestinal fortitude."

*Maybe if he kept his own promises on Social Security,
"support" wouldn't be so damned tepid?


Nothing like have the Progressive Agenda tossed in the Trash Can after winning a BIG election to dampen enthusiasm.
You can't blame The ARMY for Low Moral.
That is ALWAYS a Failure of Leadership,
and every good Leader KNOWS that.

[font size=3]"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.[/font]
-Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

[Orsino]

217. Yes, tepid public support...

...for, as I said, a stronger social safety net. The few voices calling for universal public healthcare were drowned out by a majority who got behind propping up private health insurance. President Obama's personal support could be called strong, but it doesn't take a significant hit when he keeps putting Social Security up for cuts.

Photos of crowds cheering on a man indicate an appetite for change, but in policy debates our desire to strengthen the social safety net gets...tepid. America isn't yet focused on those goals, and neither is our president.

[bvar22]

220. -Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

[font size=3]"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.[/font]

President Obama already has overwhelming support for raising Taxes on the RICH (Raise-the-CAP) among other issues that would strengthen the Safety net.

[Orsino]

221. The strongly favorable polling hasn't yet translated...

...to a public actually pushing their president (or his party) to accomplishing these things.

[bvar22]

222. -Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

[font size=3]"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.[/font]
What about that statement do you not understand?

[Orsino]

223. If you're wishing that the president would lead more, you're far from alone. n/t

[JoePhilly]

179. You only have to put up with about 3 more years of Obama.

Until Hillary takes office.

[cali]

182. ooh, you have a crystal ball. sorry, I don't believe in your

faux prognostications.

Plenty of folks here said that about her last time.

Anything can happen.

[JoePhilly]

183. What ever happens, I predict that you'll be here to tell us why its terrible.

And I'm pretty sure that prediction is going to hold up.

[cali]

189. another silly prediction from you. you seem to specialize in them joey

[JoePhilly]

191. I also tend to be right most of the time, which makes it even more fun for me.

[cali]

218. in your own mind and there it stops, joey.

[bravenak]

181. Internment camps. FDR had those.

Race relations. He did nothing about this. As a black woman, it's disturbing to heap praise on a man who used racist policies like Internment to bash a black man.
We don't need another FDR. There was only 1.
We need a real congress.
We should be fighting the Republican Party and giving our president some people he can work with.
They are the bad guys.

[Yavin4]

186. Yep. FDR turned his back on Jim Crow laws and Lynchings of Blacks in the South n/t

[bravenak]

187. That's why I don't understand why there are those that think Pres.Obama is lacking in comparison.

FDR could have passed anything he wanted with the house and senate he had. Nothing he did had legislation for Civil Rights of minorities to prevent the slaughter that continued for decades afterward. During his terms my family was living in the beautiful South. Nothing changed for them.
I don't understand why we whitewash politicians. I never will.

[stopbush]

184. No. Obama needs the same super majority in Congress that FDR enjoyed.

Without that, FDR wouldn't have been FDR.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

201. -100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

you've jumped the shark on the "I don't wike Pwesident Obama! He don't do what I want all da TIME!"

[Old and In the Way]

204. No Sale.

I'm sure you'll keep working it, though.