Obama repeatedly went out of his way during his campaign to concede that he'll make mistakes.

[Telly Savalas]

But according to some of the whiners here, if you dare suggest that any action he's taken is a mistake then you're a right wing shill.

None of them can defend the economic philosophy of "socialize the risk, privatize the reward", but they'll certainly be happy to accuse you of being a member of the John Birch Society if you disagree with this philosophy.

One of the many reasons I support Obama is that he has the maturity to handle constructive criticism. This is a stark contrast to the "President is Infallible" mentality seen around these parts, which is eerily similar to the attitude a lot of wingnuts had towards Bush.

[Enrique]

1. Obama is a right wing shill

he was trying to advance the meme that Obama is incompetent.

[mikekohr]

19. FDR Was Roundly Criticized By Pundits For Appointing Joseph P. Kennedy To Reform Wall Street

Joseph P.Kennedy was widely considered to be one of the biggest speculators in the late 1920's in the run up to the Great Depression. As an "insider," Kennedy was regarded as part of the problem and therefore not qualified to be one of the primary reformers of the practices that helped deliver the economic collapse.

FDR replied to the criticism that he wanted Kennedy involved in the reform efforts precisely because Kennedy knew were all the holes in the system were at. The reforms Kennedy helped draft lasted for 70 years, until they began to fall to the deregulation movement issued in by Ronald Reagan and brought to final fruition by Phil Graham (R)TX and Jim Leach (R)IA when their bill to repeal Glasss/Steegal was passed and signed into law in 1998.

In the end Obama will prove to be at least as successful as FDR in reforming the markets. But this reform will not happen overnight, it will not happen without a misstep or two along the way, and it will not happen without howls of protest from the right and sniping from those within Obama's own camp. But it will happen. Unless we bring him down first.

mike kohr

[BlooInBloo]

2. "But according to some..." - Boy THAT sounds familiar.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Have you considered that some people in here might not be Democrats?

And, have you considered that there are still DLCers around and that DLCers are the right wing extremist side of the Democratic Party, and precisely the people that landed us into the Bush mess to begin with by agreeing with the asshole? (Pardon the French).

[MercutioATC]

4. ...and every group has its intellectually-challenged extremists.

They have theirs, we have ours.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. True, but there are also Republicans in here nt

[MercutioATC]

6. Oh, I completely agree.

I was just pointing out that the extremists on BOTH sides of the fence cause problems.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Absolutely nt

[Fire1]

9. That is becoming quite apparent!! I think they'd be better

served on the other side.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. I agree!

They keep posting in here pretending to be Dems against Obama, and it doesn't fly.

[jody]

7. Cult leaders need loyal supporters, sycophants, and apologists to protect them from personal

failings that would tarnish and weaken the aura and mysticism that shields them from prying inquisitive mortals.

Obama respects Abraham Lincoln and he should not forget Lincoln's 'Address Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin' on September 30, 1859:
“ It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away." How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!

IMO Obama can make it on his own! :thumbsup:

[empyreanisles]

8. Cult leader? Whatever.

Most of the rabid fans like me simply want the President to have a longer honeymoon, ESPECIALLY from his OWN PEOPLE. Sheez.

[jody]

10. Does your post mean you disagree with Lincoln? You do know the job of president is 24/1461, don't

you with no respite from the first instance?

[empyreanisles]

15. No, it means I disagree with YOU. (n/t)

[jody]

16. So you and I agree with Lincoln so given that understanding, Obama should follow Lincoln's

advice as I suggested.

I'm delighted we got that straightened out.

[stillcool]

23. Columnists, radio talk show hosts...

tv commentators, preachers, politicians, hell..damn near every living being has 'supporters, sycophants, and apologists, to some degree. There is no constant though, is there? We human beings are all fallible. Unfortunately some see others support, as hero worship, while at the same time seeing their own as completely warranted. Apparently it is necessary to tear someone down, in order to lift someone up.

[jody]

24. If we could discuss issues based on facts and logic backed by references to credible sources it

might, just might produce viable policies but I don't believe that will happen in the top echelons of our government.

I've read too many reports from conferences held to thrash out the pros and cons of a proposed government policy only to find that the report has fewer elements of truth in it than usable grains of corn in a fresh cow patty.

I find comical senate and house committee hearings with the people's representatives trying to make PR points but asking questions that are generally unrelated to determining whether a particular proposed policy should be adopted or rejected.

What is really laughable is some viewer saying "X really tore Y a new one!" rather than "X asked Y a question that really penetrated to the efficacy of a proposed policy."

[ClassWarrior]

13. It's amazing how many DUers are so frustrated that they can't distinguish...

...constructive criticism from RW attacks that they feel the need to start rage threads to lash out at the one side or the other. I'd think most Progressives (and most so-called "centrists," come to think of it) would understand that most of us hold the complex view that the President should be criticized constructively (in fact, one quality that makes him such a good leader is the fact that he himself invites it, as someone pointed out on this thread), but that he shouldn't be slammed with carefully-crafted RW frames designed to undermine all of us.

NGU.

[stillcool]

14. I don't see much philosophy..

being discussed, unless you're talking about one persons view, and allegations about another. It's all or nothing, black and white, my way or no way problem and solution, based on(?). I've learned very little about the solution to this economic crisis, or the possible consequences certain actions might have. Why are so many people experts, but unable to explain why they are right, and everyone else is wrong? Do one-line responses, chock full of divisive labels portray a valid educated opinion?

[jody]

17. Agree, I'm frustrated because a president can summon the best minds in the world for closed

discussions on any problem including how to best solve our and the world's economic problems.

If those experts can't explain it to Obama and he in turn tell we voters what that means in layman's terms, the experts probably don't know their rear ends from a hole in the ground.

I know one thing for certain, recent government policies and expenditures caused our economic problem and more of the same is unlikely to be a viable solution.

I also don't trust the people who got us into this mess to lead us out of the wilderness into prosperity.

I also know economies cycle over time and we will eventually be prosperous again without human intervention.

IMO two key questions are whether government intervention can speed up the recovery process and prevent the rich from getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

[stillcool]

18. I think that is what Tuesday night is about...

I don't remember when Geithner was confirmed, and I certainly don't know when he became aware of how solvent, or insolvent these global financial institutions are. I can't say what decisions he has or hasn't had a hand in the last 30 years he's worked in government/global finance, or what his involvement has been. I suppose I should just denounce him for whatever the reason and be done with it. He goes, another comes in, and it starts all over again. We still have the government we have, we still have the Federal Reserve, we still have Wall St., we still have Global corporations, we still have the Pentagon..and really..that will be Obama's fault as well. Same old, same old.

[jody]

20. I understand and many voters expect Obama to listen to reasonable arguments from all parties and

make a personal decision on specific government policies that he expects are most likely to "promote the general Welfare" of We the People.

IMO that means a president must listen to those who are aligned with her/his personal philosophy and those who oppose him.

Like it or not, our presidents for 4 or 8 years are the most powerful single individual in the world with resources to bring happiness or sorrow to billions.

I hope Obama quickly realizes he cannot place absolute trust in any personal adviser particularly his closest advisers, each of them has a personal agenda.

[stillcool]

21. Not necessarily 4 or 8 years..

shit happens. People give George Bush way too much credit, not only for being selected the winner, but for pushing through every piece of legislation that has had such a debilitating effect on our society. The same power that was behind him, is against this President. But...I digress..none of that matters.

[Overseas]

22. New tactic by professional Obama opponents?

Today GD-P seems like the Krugman Bashing Forum. So many threads bashing Krugman for criticizing some of the Obama economic policies.

There are so many of them that it seems like there may be a concerted effort underway on the part of Obama's opponents to alienate his supporters (those who are open to reading a variety of opinion about what he is doing) by trying to stifle all dissent in this democratic discussion forum.

Those trying to stifle critical comments fit into the right wing talking point that Obama's advocates are all fanatical adherents. Look, they can say, those Obama people won't tolerate any dissent.

Why not just discuss Krugman's latest columns in the Editorial forum? Or the Economic forum. He has his theories. He likes some things Obama is doing and dislikes others. If we just discussed Krugman's critiques in one or two threads they would take their proper place. During the Bush Gang's Reign, I sought out Krugman's columns in the Editorial forum and discussed them there.

This mega-stomping of Krugman looks very odd. It really does seem like fake outrage designed for another purpose -- to alienate those who supported Obama but didn't agree with some of his policy directions. Divide the Democrats by making Obama supporters seem intolerant.

Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that there are also professional Obama opponents who seek to sow dissent through consistently negative comments about what he is doing. That is the old fashioned type of trolling.

Now it seems like some of the professional Obama opponents may be taking the new approach of bashing any criticism of his presidency very stridently in many separate threads to create the impression that his supporters are intolerant devotees.

Obama welcomes dissenting opinion and encourages citizens to speak their minds, so the dissent stompers don't really seem to be upholding his philosophy. It really seems like there may be something else going on here.