The thing that pisses me off the most about Obama..

[busterbrown]

That as of this date he has allowed the Republican party to
Disrespect, humiliate, threaten, lie, and use racial slurs on him as well as his family..
They also have been able to use mainstream media as a driving force in their attempt to undermine everything the President has accomplished during the past 50 months of his presidency.. Just look at how
they are currently fucking with the N.H.A..

Yes, there has been moderate push back in his tour speeches, however when the hell is our President going to finally stand and call these guys out for what they are...Lying, Ignorant, shameless politicians who are bent on destroying our middle class... Yea, “Lying, Ignorant, Shameless politicians, exactly how
he should state it!!!

[graham4anything]

1. Jackie Robinson won, by not doing any of that in the 2nd paragraph

You win by winning

You don't stoop to their level

BTW-any democratic person, like myself, can push back against the haters.
Those that know how great this Presidency is, should join me when I do so.
(which is ongoing 24/7/365)

Winners win by positive long term (decades worth ) and winners win by crossing every T and dotting every I

The ropeadope is such a strategy
(like our President took the hits from Mitt in debate one, beautifully exposing Mitt as being nothing

A winner knows when not to fight back, and land the decisive blow when the time comes.
Which means NO instant gratification and then one is hungry 10 minutes later for more instant gratification

It does NOT work like that

read the fable-the tortoise and the hare. The Tortoise always wins each time you read it.

[freshwest]

17. 'You win by winning.' Thanks for that quote, it's the truth.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. That that pisses you off most about President Obama ...

is what I most admire.

His actions are exactly those of a first ... He realizes that what he is doing is bigger than him and one false "angry Black man" step, will foreclose opportunities for other Black folks for a generation or more.

It takes far more strength to "shake it off and pack it down" than to go nuclear. Firsts recognize this.

[freshwest]

5. Agreed. People are going for bluster instead of substance.

Sometimes I read posts that are almost swooning over'tough talkers' who 'put the (insert evil) in their place.' Then when I watch the video, nothing is being said that wil change it, but it's great grandstanding.

It's not only the right who tosses red meat to the mob to growl and chew on, feel something is getting done, when nothing substantive is.

The demagoguing they love to hear, doesn't make sense within the scenario. Yet it is cheered endlessly.

The new villains of the day must be crushed, the new heroes must be praised. But it sounds populist to us, just as the RW demagogues feed the teahadists, too.

Obama does not play that game so he called spineless, incompetent, not bright or just a tool of (insert evil) and 'not really for us.'

You are right about Firsts - I just wish it didn't have to be that way. I'm sad when I see so much lowest common denominator commentary.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. I have noticed ...

and commented on the "swooning over 'tough talkers'" here. But I take heart in that it is only a small, but loud, contingent of DU.

[treestar]

15. Exactly

We win by getting people into office. Most of these posters want an imperial presidency. Just be "tough" enough and those Republicans congressman will roll over. Yeah, right. Would we even want that? They just want a cult of personality at the top.

[JayhawkSD]

6. Well said. (n/t)

[FSogol]

26. +1 n/t

[Aristus]

3. VVV-THIS-VVV

"when the hell is our President going to finally stand and call these guys out for what they are...Lying, Ignorant, shameless politicians who are bent on destroying our middle class..."

is exactly what they want him to do.

Good on him for not playing their game on their terms...

[Super Iridium]

4. How about stand up for the people who elected him?

He doesn't have to rant and rave like the OP suggests.

But how about standing up for the people who put him into office. Obama acts like his legacy depends on finally, at last winning over Wall Street bankers, billionaires, oil companies and the Koch brothers.

When FDR heard that these same groups were lining up against him, he said "I welcome their hatred." Where is that kind courage in Obama? A simple, unoffensive declarative statement is all that is needed -- and it speaks volumes about why FDR is beloved and missed nearly 80 years later while Obama will be forgotten in 10.

[Carolina]

7. Wonderful post, Super Iridium

and you pointed out so well how to put those repukes in place with dignity and class, a la FDR. he could also standrevisit Truman's 1948 Democratic Convention speech!

Obama doesn't only fail to stand up for "those that brung him" (Molly Ivins), he READILY concedes any/everything to those who loathe him.

Welcome to DU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Where is that FDR courage? ...

Where is FDR's super majority in the House and Senate?

It doesn't take a great deal of courage to stand up when you know you have the votes.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Not a great analogy there. For FDR to stand up took years and great personal will.

To physically stand, because he was disabled. So to say he did not need courage to stand up is just poorly worded.
The question you need to ask yourself about that time is this: how did FDR lead the Party to gain such Supermajority? That majority was a result of politics, not of nature or of God. Democrats made that happen. The Democrats of that time accomplished what we, the Democrats of today have not.
What messages did they use, what rhetorical styles, what tactics delivered that majority along with the WH to our Party? What did leadership do? How did candidates speak? Did they run around preaching compromise and bipartisan love of the GOP? Did they try to make everyone like them, or did they say as FDR said 'I welcome their hate'?
It's fun I guess to pretend that FDR's majority dropped from the sky, but FDR was the leader of the Party and the Party played great politics to get that majority. Perhaps it is true what they say, that we can learn from history and from those who made progress before us.
Anyone wondering where that super majority is should also be asking how it got there then, and wondering if we could emulate and replicate any of the elements that helped past Democrats achieve so much. Anything else is just the flinging of semi informed poo.
Do you believe that super majority dropped from the sky upon Franklin's command? I think it was won by hard core politics and that we could learn a few things from those now deceased Democrats.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Maybe a little history might help here ...

The question you need to ask yourself about that time is this: how did FDR lead the Party to gain such Supermajority?

He didn't ... He walked in the door with that majority.

When F.D.R. took over the Presidency in 1933, the Democrats controlled 64 percent of the Senate seats and 73 percent (!) of the House seats, counting independents who were sympathetic to the party.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/03/obama-versus-fdr-and-lbj.html

I'll grant that he expanded that majority; but guess what? When we have a Congress that gives a Democrat what they want (rather than a watered-down compromise), people's tend to like it ... and vote Democratic.

I suspect that, if in 2009, President Obama had had the Congress that FDR had, we would have seen a Public Option in Healthcare; the stimulus would have been bigger, and all of the stuff the gop had blocked would have become law ... and we wouldn't be facing gerrymandered districts.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. First off, Franklin did not walk. Thanks.

I asked you how that Super Majority came to be. How did the Party do that? FDR was elected with great coattails. His victory was hard won, as was that huge majority. My question is how did that happen? It was done by Democrats. How did they do it? What can we learn?
What do you about know Al Smith? The guy who lost to Hoover in 28, he left his seat as Governor of NY to run, he failed to carry even NY in 28 but FDR was elected to replace him as Governor. From that point onward, the Roosevelt was the major influence in the Party. When FDR was elected and that Super Majority was in power, Al Smith and the Conservative Democrats were furious. They formed their own Party, no less,and lost some more under that label. This is why Conservative Democrats are often looked down upon by 'FDR' Democrats, in my Dads day the conservadems split off and opposed the New Deal.
How did that majority come to be, and what could we learn about how it was done? No one is playing 'compare Obama to FDR' games here. In my view, that's just silly. It is not silly to look at our Party's past victories and notice how they were won.
That Super Majority was not delivered by the stork. And it was not delivered by trying to sound all 'moderate' in Republican areas either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Okay ... n/t

[cliffordu]

22. How many terms into his Presidencies did Roosevelt say that?

Was it the second, third or fourth??

Just trying for the oranges to oranges comparison, here......

[Carolina]

8. I agree

His failure to call them out on their policies, deceit, hatred and general undermining of the nation allows their lies to continue unchecked.

Exhibit A: his first debate perfromance against Rmoney! He let Rmoney spew lies without refutation. And we all know that lacking a real 4th estate now, a lie repeated often enough becomes truth in the minds of many sheeple.

Calling people out on their falsehoods and awful policies does NOT mean stooping to their level. It means STANDING UP for what's right, just and true. It means standing for those who supported you. It means showing strength and yes, character!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. I think that all of us would love to see him give a great rallying speech against the Republicans

but that's not really who he is nor what he stands for. He told us what he believed in back in 2004 and it's been pretty consistent since then (no red states, no blue states, bipartisanship). The main problem, of course, is that the Republicans don't want bipartisanship and I don't think he's been able to find a good way of dealing with all of the roadblocks and mines that the Republicans have been laying out since 2009. I'm not really sure that anybody has a satisfactory solution other than defeating Republicans and electing Democrats. The Republican obstructionism and reactionary behavior has been pretty extraordinary even by the standards of Newt Gingrich's "Class of 1994". It hasn't helped that one legislative chamber has been literally controlled by Republicans and the other chamber has been essentially bound and gagged by them via procedural maneuvers for the last 2-4 years. I personally believe that his goals and ambitions are loftier than what he's essentially had to settle for and that we should IMHO be thankful for what he's been able to muscle through. Unfortunately, a lot of potential has been wasted thanks largely to the Republicans. The best thing that could come out of all this would the final destruction of the current Republican Tea Party and, hopefully, the (re-)emergence of a more sensible "other" party that Democrats can work with.

[treestar]

14. OH please. They have freedom of speech.

He has allowed them to use racial slurs? So you're blaming a black man when racial slurs are used against him? How about blaming the racist?

[freshwest]

18. Ah, but the public has been saturated with Obama disdain. It's considered intellectual...

RW energy works the same way.

Blaming the victim?

Obama is beseiged like every black person in this society.

Amazing, isn't it?

[Cosmocat]

24. A different spin on the "it's his fault republicans are jackasses"

nm

[dmosh42]

20. Just another 'corporate' president without convictions.

[cliffordu]

23. Thanks for sharing!!!

[Jamaal510]

21. Speaking of

racial slurs against Obama from the GOP, I still cannot express how surprised I am that there has been this level of hostility towards him, even though he is actually 1/2 white and not completely black. You'd think that the bigots of the Right would be less harsh on someone who is biracial, but I guess the One Drop Rule is paramount among them in terms of racial matters.
Oh well...at least he got re-elected and is trying to do his job.

[Cosmocat]

25. and this would help, how?

This will change Republican behavior how?

Not one bit, in fact, in their crazed minds it would allow some kind of tangible credibility for their tagging him as being negative and oppositional.

This will change public perception how?

It would hurt him.

People are low information and don't pay attention at large. He gets a little more of the middle types than not because they see the disconnect between what the republican's scream about him and what he does and says. The middle WANTS to think "they are all the same." They don't know the context or the substance, they just see the republicans screaming like lunatics and The POTUS being measured and temperate in what he says, so there barely is a majority of people who support him.

The moment he lashes out as you want, he loses the middle, who will just think "they are both throwing mud at one another."

As others haven noted, it simply is not not his nature, and if you listened to him from day one, you knew this was who he was.

FURTHER, as a political calculation, while it may offer a sense of emotional relief to THOSE WHO ALREADY SUPPORT HIM, it would hurt him overall.