Today I heard a 94 year old Democrat explain why Obama isn't FDR.

[Hello_Kitty]

I attended a luncheon of the Democratic Women of Yavapai County, AZ. One of the speakers was Geri Emmett, a venerable Democratic activist in Arizona. DUers from AZ are undoubtedly familiar with Geri if you've gone to any state committee meetings or major Dem functions as she's always given (much deserved) accolades and honors for her decades of service to the Democratic Party in the state. Geri is still going strong today. She travels around the state with companions to promote candidates and causes and is especially outspoken in her support of women.

She's a regular speaker at the monthly luncheon and today she wanted to say a few things about our current President. I didn't have a recorder so I'll try to do her words as much justice as I can by memory. Geri started out by stating emphatically how proud she is of President Obama and how disgusted she is by the ugliness and hatred being shown by his detractors on the Right.

But most of her words were directed to his critics on the Left who complain that Obama isn't acting enough like FDR. Geri remembers FDR, well. She went on to explain just how different it was for President Roosevelt then than it is for President Obama today. For one thing, FDR's white skin shielded him from the virulent racism that Obama is subjected to from many corners. For another, FDR had the prominent Roosevelt name behind him. He was an American aristocrat. FDR had a Democratic majority in Congress that dwarfed that which we have now. Much of the country was in utter poverty and desperation. "If you've ever seen The Grapes of Wrath, that's what was going on. People were losing everything and everything was covered in dust." Essentially, FDR had the power of a dictator and he and Congress, in fact, passed some legislation that was unconstitutional and had to be fixed later. The bottom line was that FDR was in a much better position to effect sweeping changes than Obama could ever hope to be. She ended her remarks by reiterating how proud she was of our President and how great a job she thought he was doing.

I just thought I'd share that for a bit of perspective and wisdom from an elder. I'm not always happy with Pres. Obama (though most of my consternation is directed at Congress) so listening to Geri made me glad all over again that we elected him.

[Fire1]

1. Oh really? n/t

[upi402]

2. FDR had Eleanor kicking him in the butt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_roosevelt#First_Lady_of_the_United_States_.281933.C2.A0.E2.80.93_1945.29

[intheflow]

24. Like Michelle doesn't also kick Barrack's butt?

I'll bet there are some very lively political discussions amidst their pillow talks. Not to mention, Eleanor had 12 years to influence FDR's policies!

[upi402]

39. These men have silenced Brooksley Born and caused this Wall Street crap

I hope she puts that Summers biotch in a headlock and just knocks the snot bubbles outa that pig. And throws him at Barack's Feet like in the old gladiator movies.

Nah, the foxes are in charge of the henhouse again. Meet the new boss.

[DeSwiss]

57. Thank you.

Most Dems don't like THE subject of Brooksley Born being brought up, and yet it was one of the first decisions by Obama (appointing those turds Summers and Geithner) that disappointed me more than anything. And it was a decision that was more telling to me about what kind of man, and what kind of a President that Obama would be, more than anything that's happened since. Summers' and Geithner's fingerprints are all over this Great Recession that we're in, and yet they were placed in positions to oversee what they themselves caused, not to mention positions that allow them to cover the tracks of their Masters -- like Goldman Sachs.

As for the difference between Obama and FDR, there are plenty of things that make it different now than in the 1930s. For one thing, everything moves faster now. And barely anyone had electricity back then and information and decisions could move slower and develop over time. Not like now where these things must move more quickly, or a person can lose the initiative. Which is exactly what's happened to Obama.

- Whether he can recover, is anyone guess at this point.

[SemperEadem]

127. Brooksley Born is an unmatched heroine

thank God for her and thank God that she's been vindicated as this whole financial debacle has fallen out in experience.

[Captain Hilts]

94. We saw the influence of ER on FDR before he got to the WH. We've seen

nothing comparable between 'Bam and Mobama...yet.

[intheflow]

114. The Roosevelts were married for 30 years before FDR became president.

The Obama's were married 16 years when he was elected. You cannot compare the two.

[Captain Hilts]

146. I'm giving her time, hence the "yet" in my comment. nt

[EVDebs]

149. Yeah right. Like selecting Bo the dog. C'mon, she's not Eleanor and he's not FDR

He's a product of the CIA's front company Business International Corporation, as John Pilger has pointed out ('that clever young man')

At 1:30 min point

John Pilger's The two sides of Barrack Obama speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLVPp7epC8

FDR was a 'traitor to his class'

'Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt'--
H.W. Brands’s new biography on FDR is detailed, insightful, and reads like a novel
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2008/1113/traitor-to-his-class

This accusation can never be made about Barack Obama, unfortunately.

Oh, and you will never hear BHO ever give a speech about the 'economic royalists' of his day. He's too busy putting them into his cabinet and shaping policies that way.

"I do not believe in communism any more than you do, but there is nothing wrong with the communists in this country. Several of the best friends I have are Communists."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Source: The New York Times, May 6th, 1933
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Franklin.Roosevelt.Quote.1C5F

With Barry you have him in fear of having the kind of 'town hall meeting' with the progressives in his own party ... but perfectly willing to kiss the tushes of the GOP whenever he gets the chance.

[femrap]

91. Eleanor visited the

country...saw the misery and demanded her husband do something about it. She had such strength and courage. She was a great woman.

[Captain Hilts]

101. FDR also realized how they would have been ruined after polio if they had not been wealthy and

in Georgia, at Warm Springs, it brought him into touch with rural poverty and how it affected those populations.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. Thanks for sharing the story,

and for providing some needed insight.

[Smashcut]

4. FDR on his foes: "I welcome their hatred."

FDR had a fire in his belly that Obama simply doesn't have. Obama is a highly competent executive but an incrementalist who is too focused on appeasement of the PTB.

THAT is why Obama is not FDR.

[gateley]

11. I've thought about this before, that those with the names, money and security

they had growing up (Kennedy, FDR, Rockefeller, Bush) find it easier to do what they want, and damn what anybody thinks. They know they're set for life, will want nothing, and who gives a fuck if they step on some toes? They're used to people kissing their ass because of that money and name, and have a sense of entitlement and invincibility. They ARE the PTB.

Obama had none of that growing up.

I see little sparks of a potential fire in his belly now and then, and I'm hoping that some of his successes come quickly to fan the flame.

[Smashcut]

16. That's very, very true. Sense of entitlement and all.

Although the hauteur of favored sons can easily be outmatched by the righteous anger of the have-nots.

It is true Obama had none of that in childhood but he became part of the gilded class thanks to his tremendous intelligence and eminent likability. I would amend your comment only to add that Obama, as someone who wasn't born into that crowd, might be more reticent to piss them off. That is, because he doesn't take their admiration for granted, he's too afraid of losing it.

[gateley]

19. I agree with your amendment - you express my sense of it perfectly.

[Captain Hilts]

96. He grew up 'intelligentsia' as it was uncommon for women to have grad degrees

back then. It placed him in a different demographic from say, what Michelle, grew up in. She - like Bill Clinton - went to crappy schools and had to scrap more to get where she did.

[Bette Noir]

121. B*llsh*t.

Having a hard-working single mom driving you, tutoring you before breakfast, isn't the same thing as growing up upper-caste.

[Captain Hilts]

136. I did not say "upper caste" at all. 'Intelligentsia' means highly educated, not wealthy.

So, spare me the "bullshit."

[Hydra]

23. Obama is being more closely handled

Every time I see that spark you speak of, he gets stomped on by whoever his sponsers are, and makes a public retraction.

I heard Bill Clinton got the same treatment at one point. I wonder what it's like to have your dream handed to you, only to have someone say to you, "Do anything other than what we say, and you'll get a bullet."

[bkozumplik]

47. wishful thinking

Its less painful to explain Obama's lack of action by fantasizing that he has no choice in the matter-- that a shadowy cabal controls his every move. I suppose its possible.

[Hydra]

172. I deal mostly in results rather than causes

In the end, it's irrelevant what's causing the inaction in one direction and too much action in the other. The results speak for themselves.

Nevertheless, the WHY is also important as it applies to the future. Was this always Obama's gameplan, or is he a figurehead that isn't allowed to criticize the DC police?

[Ex Lurker]

53. That's very true, but a modern president essentially has the same thing

President Obama will have a very generous lifetime pension when he leaves office, and no doubt will get a recordbreaking deal for his memoirs, should he choose to write them. He's set for life, too. He needn't be any more afraid of stepping on toes than FDR was.

[NOLALady]

84. If he's afriad of anything,

I doubt it is bruised toes.

[NOLALady]

82. I think he has that fire,

but he keeps it under control.

[PatSeg]

122. FDR had far more experience in

government and politics. He was a proud ambitious man who was greatly humbled by his illness. He confronted first hand the prejudice against polio victims and it had a profound effect on his attitude towards his fellow man. Add Eleanor's amazing compassion for the underprivileged, and they became an extraordinary couple.

They were definitely different people at a much different time.

[Captain Hilts]

148. Yes, FDR was a skilled bureaucrat. The comparison isn't fair to either man. nt

[boppers]

174. An "angry black man" characature is one I think he avoids, intentionally.

The fire in his belly is not a fist-pumping, slogan-shouting, one, it's a slow and steady burn.

This makes for poor theater, but seems to have gotten him into the highest office in the land.

[pundaint]

42. Yes, much bigger difference than the asserted ones.

[DailyGrind51]

55. Exactly! Obama backs down under pressure, preferring compromise over Party platform.

[quark219]

60. +1 Well said.

Obama had plenty of scope and power for change in his first year in office and wasted it. And when you look at how cozy he was with the corporate and Wall Street elite from Day 1, I'm not even sure he ever wanted much change to begin with.

I have to agree with the assessment that Obama was primarily a way of rebranding the image of the Democratic party, in much the same way that Benetton started prominently featuring African Americans and Asians in their billboard advertising in the 1980s.

[Bette Noir]

123. That's as racist as anything I've seen come from a teabagger.

[goclark]

83. Right ~ FDR didn't have internet and cell phones and instant news

and Rush L. every morning and Fox News and on and on.

Presidnt Obama is a man for this season.

[Larkspur]

85. FDR had Father Couglin

who was the equivalent of Rush Limbaugeh in FDR's day

[Captain Hilts]

93. And the Chicago Tribune and the Hearst papers. nt

[Shining Jack]

139. Hearst...

He was the Rupert Murdoch of that time.:(

[8 track mind]

5. That sent chills up my spine

A week before my grandmother died in 2005, she told me that Bush was just like Hoover. She told me that we (as a nation) were in trouble again. She was right.

[jwirr]

6. I hope she is writing her story and includes this kind of knowledge. nt

[Doremus]

7. Thank you for this. nt

[Uzybone]

8. Thank you for some actual perspective from someone who was there

[gateley]

9. Boy, what incredible insight. Thank you so much for sharing this - and thank

Geri for helping us to better understand. :)

[frazzled]

10. A perspective from my 84-year-old mother

She too has been extremely disturbed by the criticism of Obama. Obviously from the right, but also from the mainstream media (I don't think she's aware of the extent of criticism from the left because she doesn't use the Internet). She told me she refuses to watch Brian WIlliams anymore because the first words he uttered after the State of the Union speech were "there was a lot of booing going on in there." (There was?) That was it for her: not, that was a great speech or even that covered a lot of territory?

She went on to say that Obama was probably the most intelligent president she'd seen in her lifetime, and that she felt he was working very hard to do the right thing. I should say that my mother was not always so fond of Obama: she was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, and she had some rather unflattering things to say about him during the primary. We agreed not to talk about the subject. But the fact that she has been able to change her opinion of this man over the course of the last year ... to the extent of calling him the most intelligent president she'd seen (and she's seen quite a few) ... goes to show the assessment that many of our elders are making about him, from their long-term, reasoned experience. I'll admit my mother is not a radical or even a progressive. But she's a well-read, thinking, long-time Democrat who understands the mess this president was left to clean up, and thinks he's doing an honest, balanced job of trying to fix things, against a background of very unfair criticism and demands. I think she and the lady from Arizona above are pretty representative of their generation. And sometimes they're pretty wise.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Geri, not surprisingly, was a big Hillary Clinton supporter in the primary.

And it's funny but I've noticed that Clinton supporters I know seem to be pretty satisfied with how Obama is doing. Some staunch Obama supporters OTOH are bitterly disappointed (though most are happy).

[JTFrog]

56. Funny, I don't see it that way at all.

The most vocal Hillary supporters I know have never cut Obama an inch of slack.

[comtec]

61. I suppose that makes sense. Hilary supporters are generally more pragmatic

than the Obama supporters were.
Also Hilary herself is a DLCer, and therefore conservative for a democrat.
Obama, is showing himself to be a DLCer, and thus, following suit.
In the End the Hilary supporters got their way.

I just wish he had the same fire that the Clintons both have.
His leadership leave much to be desired.

I'm not complaining that I don't have my pony, I'm right pissed off because he kicked me in the teeth, and told me I should like it!
constantly compromising everything, leaving OFF the table Single Payer (that the VAST majority of Americans WANT) is unforgivable.
He started from a REAL position of power, but has been playing like he's coming from a place of weakness.

It's the lack of REAL leadership in all this, NOT laying out a road map that has people pissed and ready to storm the white house.The sense that NOTHING we put him into office with a SUPER MAJORITY will ever get done!

If he gave half a shit, he would be beating the ever living shit out of that complete, spineless piece of shit reid! for acting like some beaten child!

There are no excuses for what he, and his ilk, are NOT doing.

[dionysus]

64. that post was a big steaming pile of bitter.

:rofl:

[comtec]

81. It was meant to be a compliment to the hilary supporters

And yes i'm right pissed off about what's NOT going on in the government.

I'm sick of this "pony" bullshit!

Show me a clear path to victory, and I'll walk it, no matter the perils, most people are patient.

But what has he done to keep his promises?

Very little actually in the way of a path!

Of course we have no choice, but to suffer.

We'll do the "right" thing.

But damned if i'm going to just accept this bullshit quietly!

Has he been idle? no of course not. but what he's done feels more like bandaids on scratches. stuff that feels good (my boyfriend is gonna kill me) but I'd put health care above DADT - but at least he's done SOMETHING about that!

Propping up the banks, was dubious at best - especially since it looks like they didn't ACTUALLY NEED our help - just our money for some questionable investment or whatever!

The Stimulus was started under * - and while it was a flawed concept from teh start, the President (now) has done a marvelous job with it.

I accept and admit that!

But a WORKING medical system would go a HUGE way towards improving not only the LOT of everyone, it would help the economy hugely by freeing up those hundreds or even THOUSANDS EVERY MONTH people are paying for insurance!

And the president has been a fucking COWARD on this issue!

[liberation]

107. Pragmatism in politics is NOT a good thing...

It would be like pretending that that agnosticism would be the best quality for a Pope.


Politics at its very core is based on ideology, removing ideology from the equation is very dangerous. Just because some Americans have lost their spines and can't deal with complexity (ideology also implies a certain level of "developed" political thought process among the population in a democracy) it does not make it proper to pretend that pragmatism in lieu of ideology is a good thing.

This is why to this day, most of us can't figure out what Obama is about. Because as a "pragmatist" he removed himself from any ideological constraint and now we simply do not posses any proper reference frame to evaluate his stands. It is the old trying to have it both ways, which is as American as apple pie: Obama wants the votes of the liberals (and their enthusiasm esp. during the electoral campaign, we are useful idiots that way) but wants none of the liberal ideological constraints to cramp his moderate conservative/center-right leanings.

And same goes for Mrs. Clinton, how else can you explain how a person who was the president of the College Republicans chapter at her Alma Mater and who was a former "Goldwater Girl" (during the height of Watergate no less, when the GOP brand was as tarnished as it has ever been) felt "entitled" enough to be the front runner of the supposedly progressive party in the XXI century?

[Captain Hilts]

111. Wow. What an ignorant post. FDR supported Herbert Hoover for president. nt

[liberation]

112. Yeah, your response is so much more "impressive"...

LOL, love the projection of a person using an ad hominem argument calling others "ignorant"

So FDR supported Hoover so much that he decided to run against him, on the opposite party no less. I mean, talk about "support." You just can't make some of this shit up some times...

[butterfly77]

118. Still angry huh?

[Captain Hilts]

103. I've noticed the same thing. I think HRC supporters were more likely to see their similarities.

And less likely to see Obama as a hard-charging progressive.

On paper, the pickings weren't that diverse between the two. Obama voters saw the differences between the two, Clinton voters more likely to see the similarities.

[gateley]

14. A hug to your mom -- another wise woman.

And what an interesting, sharp observation about Brian Williams -- I hadn't heard that.

You tell her I won't watch him any more either!

[Cha]

15. Smart Mom..pick up on that from brian williams..

right out of the starting gate. And, she's right..it's freaking pathetic what the corporatemediawhores will do to wallow in their negativity.

Thank you for little history on your Mom's political evolution.

[Clio the Leo]

13. Beautiful. Thank you. NT

[FrenchieCat]

17. I appreciate this thread......

In fact, mine was the first recommendation.

It is obvious that this dear woman lives in a modern based world,
and does not live in the past while rewriting history.
That's refreshing.

[Kind of Blue]

18. Thanks for posting this.

It's heartwarming to hear someone of her generation unabashedly make a clear distinction and has a balanced point of view, as opposed to the one who considers our president a coward.
KnR

[salguine]

20. Another big difference: FDR was a doer. Obama is a talker.

[scheming daemons]

21. -1000

[depakid]

22. Unfortunately, the record on more than a few issues- and agencies shows precisely that

It's one thing to talk about accountability with banksters & fraudsters (or god forbid torturers) -and quite another to actively take steps to ensure that occurs.

[ProSense]

26. Agreeing with a comment that completely misses the point.

Which agencies?

It's easy to go around making baseless claims: Unfortunately, (insert fact-free accusation)...

[depakid]

27. Even Bush I dealt with the aftermath of the S&L debacle by holding a lot of entities and individuals

accountable- and there was also this deal called the Resolution Trust Corporation...

Thus far, we haven't seen much in the way of accountability from this DOJ, have we?

A rhetorical question, of course- which bears on why we've still got banksters and fraudsters thumbing their noses and passing out 6 and 7 figure bonuses.

And btw: what about that rampant corruption within the SEC itself? Heard much about that situation lately? Nope. No more than the executives and managers of Peanut Corp, who are still hiding in their mansions behind the corporate veil.

[ProSense]

31. You sure are a fan of the Bushes.

Bush held people accountable for the S&L crises. What a ridiculous statement. If he had, he'd have thrown Neil Bush in jail.

[depakid]

33. I'm a fan of results- and it gives me no pleasure to note the FACT that despite the above

Bush I was more effective in this regard than the current administration is- or aspires (or seemingly ever aspired) to be.

A very sad statement- and one that's not gone unnoticed by many more folks than me.

[ProSense]

35. "Bush I was more effective in this regard than the current administration "

Bullshit. Obama has gotten more done in his first year than Bush 1 in four years.

The stimulus

Victory on clean cars mileage rules

Landmark U.S. conservation bill

Credit Card Act

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act

Ending a war

CHANGE HILDA SOLIS CAN BELIEVE IN....

[depakid]

43. Err... you don't (for obvious reasons) address the glaring issue I raised

It's perfectly alright to admit failings- that's the only way they're ever addressed, and the only way people (or groups) learn from their mistakes.

(Though somehow I doubt the administration's going to learn in this regard, as it's seemingly not their style up to this point to hold banksters, fraudsters tortures or a whole host of similar types accountable for the harms they've perpetrated. One more thing that all put together adds up to a general conclusion about whose side the administration is really on).

[dionysus]

65. this is something new i've seen in the last few days. defending BUSH to take a swipe at obama.

must be running out of talking points...

:shrug:

[depakid]

79. Making an objective compare and contrast doesn't equal "defending" anyone

The record is what it it- and people can accept the facts- or try to spin in some sort of bizarre denial. Much as the Bushbots did- and do.

Next thing you know, someone's going to try their hand at rationalizing why letting corporate criminals and torturers walk scot free is a "good thing" or some grandmaster chess move...

[Cha]

167. Anything to take a swipe at the President will

satisfy whether it has anything to do with realilty or not.

[quiller4]

48. Actually FDR's reputation as governor was as a talker not a doer

and there were many who feared he would be reluctant to take necessary action as president.

[Lorien]

74. FDR probably also took a position and stuck to it. With Obama, his position

changes as often as his underwear on Progressive issues. Racism? That's just an excuse. The racists didn't vote him into office. He had a mandate from the people for CHANGE. FDR had a near dictatorship? So did BushCo-even when the Dems had the House!

[4lbs]

117. Really? So FDR's original position on Social Security was that minorities and women SHOULD NOT be

allowed to enroll in it?

Or did he back down after learning of the Southern Democrats' intent to filibuster and block it?

[Cha]

161. Yeah, I think I'll give more credence to the woman in the OP

than the interneters who don't really know what's going on but never miss a chance for a cheap shot.

[femrap]

95. Obama must stand up to the

Monopolies...that's what these Insurance Companies, Wall Street Banks, Food/Ag companies are. Break them up...bring back Glass-Stegall.

Fight for the working people with actions. I'm tired of the words.

Get that CEO of Goldboy Sucks and trim him down to size. But this would probably get him killed.

I guess that is what our world has become...corrupted to the core with no chance for the workers.

[Captain Hilts]

104. FDR, unlike Bill Clinton and B Obama, didn't worry about having everybody like him. nt

[avaistheone1]

116. I think so too.

[ShortnFiery]

119. +1,000,000

[Cha]

160. That's bc you don't pay attention to

anything this President actually does.

[happyslug]

25. Actually the Democratic Congress of 1932-1936 was to the LEFT of FDR

People tend to forget that FDR Veto the bill to give the WWI veterans their bonus in 1934 instead of in 1947 (as it was scheduled to be paid) and that veto was OVER RIDDEN by congress. While FDR did sign most of the Bills passed by Congress in the first 100 days, most of those laws had been discussed for decades and opposed by the GOP. Congress passed them and FDR signed them NOT because he wanted them, but it was the cost of having a Democratic Congress. FDR's biggest threat during his first term was NOT from the Right, the GOP was self-destructing like it is doing now, but from the left. This was NOT the Social Left but the Economic Left and that left liked Huey Long. Now the Unions preferred FDR for Long was from the South, the most anti-Labor part of the Country, but he had strong support among left leaning farmers (Who still existed in huge numbers at that date). Given a Choice between FDR and Huey Long, wall Street would take FDR hands down (even if that meant abandoning the Republican party).

This fight between Huey Long and FDR became more and more severe as the depression went on. FDR provided New Dela Money to Republican Governor of Pennsylvania Pinochet (Who had been chief Forester under Theodore Roosevelt and a left wing member of the GOP) but provided fellow Democrat Huey Long NO MONEY for Louisiana (While Huey Long was building Bridges across the Mississippi and paving roads left and right in his home state while raising taxes on the wealthy). The well to do people of New Orleans were doing what the Tea parties are doing today, but NOT to FDR but to Huey Long.

Thus the biggest threat to FDR was from the LEFT not the RIGHT. The Democrats in Congress were more left wing then FDR was. With Huey Long's assassination, no one stood between him and reelection (Especially the Republican Party). With his re-election FDR returned to his Conservative roots and tried to balance the budget after his reelection in 1936 (Threatening a Veto if the Democratic Congress would NOT pass a more balanced budget). This attempt to balance the budget sent the country into a deep recession in 1937-1938. FDR had to adopt even more aggressive stimulus package (All types of projects were paid for in the 1938-1940 period) to get the country back on its feet, through once that was done the Depression was over (But WWII was on the Horizon but that is another story). The Democratic Party was more then willing to give him the money, for they had been for it from 1936 onward but FDR had opposed it.

As to President Obama, his biggest problem is Congress is NOT left of him, the House is a bit to the left but the Senate is anything is to his right. He has stabbed the left in the back since he was elected when he should have been strengthening it so he could use it as a threat to the Right wing of the Democratic PArty. Obama has to be more like Lincoln. When the Republican Governor of New York State threaten NOT to support Lincoln on how Lincoln was fighting the Civil War, Lincoln told him that was his right, and that is was also Lincoln's right to withhold ALL AND ANY SUPPORT for the Governor's reelection. The Governor noted the lesson being taught and changed his position to support Lincoln's war efforts, for the Governor knew he would lose re-election without Lincoln's support. Lincoln understood the two party system and how to use the threat that losing a seat to the opposition was less important then making sure the person of your own party who holds that seat is loyal. FDR also understood this, thus his refusal to come to the aid of Huey Long and Louisiana (FDR did provide money for Louisiana once Huey Long was dead, since those Democrats without Long were loyal to FDR and FDR rewarded Loyalty).

In my opinion Obama needed to Strengthen the Left Wing so he could use it as a club on the Democrats in the Senate. First he should have released all of the prisoners in Guantanamo and send them home (or if that was NOT possible to any third country where they wanted to go and were willing to take them, if no where then the US proper on some sort of parole but Iraq and Afghanistan would been good places to send most of them). By now it would be old news, not a festering sore it has been since Bush was President. Proposed Single Payer and then get the left to put pressure on Congress to pass it. When it failed (And it would fail) then use that left to find people to run against member so of Congress who voted against the Bill. Congress would have passed single Payer this year to avoid the Primary Challenge OR passed it next year as the Primary heated up (Or maybe in 2011 AFTER the election based on who was elected this fall).

As to the Senate and health care, actually force the GOP to do a property Filibuster, have Reid schedule NOTHING except health care debate. When the Republican stop talking make a motion for a Closure vote. When you do not get the 60 votes needed, resume the debate by asking the GOP to start talking. Obama has be willing to do a LBJ, shut down the Government for three months (That is what LBJ and the Democratic Leadership of the Senate did in 1964 to get the Civil Rights act of 1964 passed). I am sorry the GOP needs to be taught a lesson, the cost of doing a Filibuster must be made higher then what it has been since the "reforms" of the early 1970s that reduced the votes needed from 2/3rd (67 votes) down to 60 votes. The only way to teach the GOP that lesson is to redo 1964.

The house can also force the issue, by simple passing the Health bill and attaching it to Every thing and anything that goes to the Senate. This will force the Senate to vote against ANYTHING passed by the House and again shutting down the Government. Make no exceptions just keep passing it. This would require a more left leaning house then today's house, but that can change THIS YEAR, if Obama had kept the left wing of the Party alive. The Left could challenger in the Primaries forcing sitting Congress people to either run the risk of losing election on health care OR voting for it till it passes. The Senate would be upset at getting all these Health Care attachment but as long as Congress gives them NOTHING else, the Senate will either have nothing to vote on, or if it votes on something, the house can attach or reattach the health care package and send it right back to the Senate. You run shutting down the Government, but something has to be done to get this bill passed and sometimes you have to shut down the Government. LBJ did it in the Summer of 1964 (During the height of his own and Congress's election year. The more I read about what is happening the more I am Convince we need such a shut down, otherwise nothing will be passed.

My problem is that Congress, as a whole, is NOT to the left of Obama. We needs some solid left wing radicals who can take the House and Senate and force the issue of health care. Congress does NOT have enough of such left wing radicals and that is what differs FDR and Obama, FDR had a left wing Congress that he had to lead and to keep under control, Obama does NOT and thus can not lead for he has nothing to control.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

28. Exactly, he had a wider majority and very few of the blue dog types back then. The world was his ...

oyster. With the abudance of obstacles in Pres. Obama's way he's doing a micrulous job we just need to give him the congress that honors that.

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Points well taken

Just as it needed to be a conservative to open China, it needed to be a Democrat to change welfare.

Someone who wasn't a patrician would have had a harder time of doing what Roosevelt did, but it would have been damned interesting to see what could have happened with a Huey Long Presidency. (I haven't the foggiest whether that would have been good or bad, but it would have been INTERESTING.)

We've kept the misery well-hidden right now, and it WAS a bigger disaster, but think about this for a minute: we're at the equivalent of early spring 1931 right now on the same time-line of personal disaster, and there are still some shoes to drop. Roosevelt's Presidency wouldn't start for another 2 years on this time-line. Hard times are amplified by continuation of hard times.

Let's be straight and clear on a few things, though: Roosevelt called skunks skunks, and even if he didn't coin the term "Banksters", he sure as hell popularized it. I believe he's actually credited with the modern usage of the term "chiseler", although the word dates to the early 1800s. He called the Republicans all sorts of names and he made no bones about that. We'll NEVER see Obama do that, and it's not just decorum or style; he's simply not as dead-set against their ideology as Roosevelt was. I MEAN that. It seems obvious, and I'm tired of the apologists and nit-pickers on this subject: he's a corporatist. That's a BIG DAMNED DEAL, lest we forget.

Remember: Roosevelt had the handicap of being a patrician in a country that has always feigned "commonness" as essential for a politician. He had to fight against that stereotype, but his actions soon made that no longer necessary.

Someone once assessed him as a man of second-rate intelligence with a first-rate character. Whether the former is fair or not, the latter is spot on: he was a true leader, not just an adept campaigner.

[zalinda]

30. Obama has one thing that FDR didn't have

INSTANT COMMUNICATION. He could have thousands if not millions, calling, texting and emailing their reps telling them to get on board with what he wanted. FDR didn't have polls, he didn't have TV or the Internet. He cared, Obama doesn't.

zalinda

[FrenchieCat]

32. Obama does care......

even if you don't care for him,
and never, ever have. Ain't nobody stupid now.

[zalinda]

34. Then he should DO something to show it,

not just TALK about it. I will give him his props, he is a good talker.

zalinda

[ProSense]

37. Maybe you should open your eyes

The stimulus

Victory on clean cars mileage rules

Landmark U.S. conservation bill

Credit Card Act

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act

Ending a war

CHANGE HILDA SOLIS CAN BELIEVE IN....

Want a longer list?

[zalinda]

40. The war ended? I was not informed.

I guess I should stop making the helmet liners for the troops then.

zalinda

[FrenchieCat]

46. Obama's done plenty,

although yeah...I agree....there's plenty more to "do", and he's got at least 3 years to get it done!

Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html?hp

Economy in U.S. Grew at 5.7% Pace, Most in Six Years
Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The economy in the U.S. expanded in the fourth quarter at the fastest pace in six years as factories cranked up assembly lines and companies increased investment in equipment and software.

The 5.7 percent increase in gross domestic product, which exceeded the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, marked the best performance since the third quarter of 2003, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. Efforts to rebuild depleted inventories contributed 3.4 percentage points to GDP, the most in two decades.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acQASpga4OhM&pos=1



U.S. Retail Sales Rose 0.5% in January
WASHINGTON—U.S. retail sales rose more than expected in January, posting a broad-based increase in a sign of promise for the economy at the start of the first quarter.

Retail sales last month increased 0.5%, the Commerce Department said Friday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast a 0.3% increase.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703525704575060922363790634.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Jobless Claims Drop Markedly
February 12, 2010
The past week saw a huge fall in the number of persons making an initial filing for jobless claims. The U.S. Department of Labor reported:
In the week ending Feb. 6, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 440,000, a decrease of 43,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 483,000.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/188235-jobless-claims-drop-markedly

Blue-Collar Jobs in Demand for 2010

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-blue_collar_jobs_in_demand_for_2010-1099

Administration Launches 35 City Stimulus Tour

http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=1326



Data on industry output, home building boost hopes
2/17/10
WASHINGTON – The latest evidence that manufacturers are helping lead the economic recovery emerged Wednesday in a report that industrial production posted its seventh straight increase in January.

The report from the Federal Reserve showed gains in all three major categories: manufacturing, mining and utilities. It was the first such collective show of strength since August 2009. Manufacturing output rose 1 percent, led by a nearly 5 percent gain in auto production.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Volcker Op-Ed: Look out, big banks. Change is coming

Paul Volcker, chairman of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, contributes an important op-ed to today's NY Times. And the message to big banks is clear: Your "too-big-to-fail" ass has been saved for the last time: ......
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31volcker.html?pagewanted=1

Volcker Speaks on the Volcker Rule

February 12, 2010, 5:55 am In a video interview with The Financial Times, Paul A. Volcker, former head of the Federal Reserve, explained his thinking behind the package of reforms that includes the Volcker Rule, which would ban banks from engaging in proprietary trading.

“What is addressed in these proposals is what banks can do,” he told the newspaper, “and what non banks can do.” He noted that banks have deposit insurance and access to the Federal Reserve.
“Proprietary trading in all its forms was an important part of the crisis,” Mr. Volcker said. The term refers to trading in securities, options and bonds that a bank does on its own account, with its own funds and for its own profit, as opposed to risks it takes for clients.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/volcker-speaks-on-the-volcker-rule/

"...Love him or hate him, or anything in between, recognition of the overall effect of the broad points of Obama's emergency economic policies --- quickly passed at an historic moment of looming disaster --- is due. At least along with any honest appraisal of those policies."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7679

.....because even with the wrench thrown in by Republican Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, this Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. The deep dysfunction of our politics may have produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record accomplishment.

There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

Any Congress that passed all these items separately would be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress did it in one bill.

Lawmakers then added to their record by expanding children's health insurance and providing stiff oversight of the TARP funds allocated by the previous Congress.

Other accomplishments included a law to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, a credit card holders' bill of rights and defense procurement reform.

The House, of course, did much more, including approving a historic cap-and-trade bill and sweeping financial regulatory changes. And both chambers passed their versions of a health-care overhaul. Financial regulation is working its way through the Senate, and even in this political environment it is on track for enactment in the first half of this year. It is likely that the package of job-creation programs the president showcased on Wednesday, most of which got through the House last year, will be signed into law early on as well.

Most of this has been accomplished without any support from Republicans in either the House or the Senate -- an especially striking fact, since many of the initiatives of the New Deal and the Great Society, including Social Security and Medicare, attracted significant backing from the minority Republicans.
snip
Democratic ideologies stretch from the left-wing views of Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Maxine Waters in the House to the conservative approach of Ben Nelson in the Senate and Bobby Bright in the House, with every variation in between. Finding 219 votes for climate-change legislation in the House was nothing short of astonishing; getting all 60 Senate Democrats to support any version of major health-care reform, an equal feat.
snip
specific new policies -- such as energy conservation and protection for public lands -- enjoy solid and broad public support. But many voters discount them simply because they were passed or proposed by unpopular lawmakers. In Massachusetts, people who enthusiastically support their state's health-care system were hostile to the very similar plan passed by Congress. Why? Because it was a product of Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902516.html

Obama proposes federal climate change agency
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration proposed a new climate change agency yesterday to provide Americans with predictions on how global warming will affect everything from drought to sea levels.

The initiative, modeled loosely on the 140-year-old National Weather Service, would provide forecasts to farmers, regional water managers, and business operators affected by changing climate conditions. It is being proposed as skeptics have become increasingly effective in attacking the credibility of global warming forecasts.

The agency would be part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors climate and conducts research. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration also directs similar operations.

“We currently respond to millions of annual requests for climate information, and we expect those requests to grow exponentially,’’ said Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator, adding that with recent scientific advances, “the models will continue to improve, and we will be able to provide more and more information.’’
(snip)
The agency launched a web portal yesterday at www.climate.gov to provide a single entry point for access to climate information, products, and services.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/02/09/obama_proposes_federal_climate_change_agency/


U.S. to stay in climate pact even without China
http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20100217/1510/tls-u-s-to-stay-in-climate-pact-even-wit.html


Obama ends Bush-era farm policy
The Obama administration on Thursday gave more job protections to temporary farm workers from both the United States and other countries, ending a Bush-era rule that critics said paid foreigners too cheaply to allow Americans to compete.
"This new rule will make it possible for all workers who are working hard on American soil to receive fair pay while at the same time expand opportunities for U.S. workers," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a news release.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0210/labor_aims_for_fair_pay_4e8e13d8-0e35-46a3-920c-5d87cbaa8712.html

here is one extremely consequential area where Obama has done just about everything a liberal could ask for -- but done it so quietly that almost no one, including most liberals, has noticed. Obama's three Republican predecessors were all committed to weakening or even destroying the country's regulatory apparatus: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the other agencies that are supposed to protect workers and consumers by regulating business practices.

Now Obama is seeking to rebuild these battered institutions. In doing so, he isn't simply improving the effectiveness of various government offices or making scattered progress on a few issues; he is resuscitating an entire philosophy of government with roots in the Progressive era of the early twentieth century. Taken as a whole, Obama's revival of these agencies is arguably the most significant accomplishment of his first year in office. <...>
<more>
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /

Presented two Budgets that, considering the state of our economy are more Progressive than any budget in 2 decades!

Specifically addressing FDR’s mistake in reducing spending in 1937, Orszag indicated the Administration will not make drastic cuts that will threaten the fragile recovery. The path to deficit reduction is based on reversing the fiscal policies of the last 8 years including allowing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 to expire, ending the fossil fuel subsidies, ending the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, implementing the Fiscal Commision, and instituting the 3 year freeze. In addition, Orszag said strict adherence to PayGo will prevent irresponsible spending as it did in the 90s. This is also the thinking behind the freeze in that departments will have the ability to raise spending provided they find reductions to pay for it. These tactics are expected to reduce the deficit to 3.9% of GDP by 2015, just above the accepted target of 3% of GDP. Even so, in order to set the country on solid ground for the long term, Orszag acknowledged the need to reform health care in order to reduce the costs of Medicaid and Medicare. Health care has the potential of consuming over 10% of GDP by 2050, which is not sustainable.
http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=1162

Tell the truth, and we'll kick GOP ass in 2010. Repeat their lies, and well you know that it says more about you than it does about anything else.......yep, IMFO!

The Inconvenient Truth: A Record of Accomplishment the AP Neglected

Some of you may have seen the analysis piece run by the AP today assessing the President's first year in office. Unfortunately, the AP seems to have adopted the GOP's talking points rather than looking at the facts. Most notably, the analysis utterly ignores both the breadth and depth of the President's accomplishments. Despite inheriting an economy that was in the deepest recession in generations and a foreign policy that left our standing in the world in tatters and the nation less secure, the President has had one of the most successful first years in recent history. As a result of his leadership, and largely without Republican support we have:

-Passed and implemented a Recovery Act that as multiple reports have verified not only saved the economy from the brink but also funded up to 2 million American jobs.

-Provided tax cuts for 95 percent of working families.

-Rebuilt an economy that is growing for the first time in over a year.

-Cut job losses from almost 800,000 a month to 20,000 a month.

-Made the largest investment in green technology in history.

-Made the largest investment in education in history.

-Lifted the ban on stem cell research and restored science to its rightful place.

-Raised fuel standards after years of stagnation and objection.

-Ended predatory credit card practices.

-Made equal pay for equal work more than a platitude with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

-Expanded health coverage to 4 million more low income American children with the expansion of SCHIP.

-Expanded benefits for loving couples that work at the State Department.

-Lifted the discriminatory, inhumane and unwise ban on immigration of those with HIV/AIDS.

-Started a process to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to allow patriotic Americans to serve and be true to themselves while we fight two wars.

-Begun to responsibly wind down the war in Iraq.

-Implemented a new way forward in Afghanistan in the face of withering criticism from the right and the left.

-Enhanced American security by repairing our alliances and by restoring the rule of law and our standing in the world.

-Successfully managed the outbreak of the H1N1 epidemic.

-Prohibited lobbyists from serving on important boards and commissions.

-Banned federal lobbyists and political action committees from contributing to the DNC.

-Enhanced transparency by making all visitors who enter the White House and the names of those with whom they met publicly available.

And there is more change on the horizon because of the President's efforts this year:

-We've helped pass bills in Congress that will make college loans more affordable and create a cap and trade system that will make this generation a steward of the environment for generations to come.

-For the first time in over 100 years of trying, both Houses of Congress have passed comprehensive health reform bills.

Yes, there are things that still need to be done and change left to be made. But there has been great progress this year. But while we know that the press is likely to tell a particular story that fits a preferred narrative, the facts in this case tell a very different story.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2010/02/the_inconvenien.php

Report Card on Civil Liberties

Obama pledged to reject the Bush administration's fast-and-loose adherence to constitutional rights. How is he doing?

During his inauguration speech, President Barack Obama declared, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." These were words many Americans who voted for Obama longed to hear -- an acknowledgement that American security could not be purchased by shredding the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Interrogation
On Jan. 22, 2009, two days after having taken office, Obama issued an executive order instructing all agents of the U.S. government to follow interrogation procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual, which bans the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." The executive order states plainly that individuals in U.S. custody shall "in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)."

This is a marked change from the Bush administration's guidelines, which held that the "executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack" trumped all legal and treaty obligations governing how detainees should be treated. The Bush administration's definition of torture "was so narrow as to allow almost anything," according to Ken Gude, an expert on human rights and international law at the Center for American Progress.

"This is the one area where I think we've seen the most change. There will be no gray areas; we've got a pretty clear standard," Gude says. By instructing adherence to the Field Manual, the administration has signaled "there will be no attempt to redefine language to allow things that people would generally consider torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

Verdict: Change we can believe in.

Rendition
The same executive order that banned "enhanced interrogation" techniques also ordered the CIA to close the infamous "black sites" where detainees were interrogated and held without trial. It also prohibited the transfer of individuals to other countries to face torture, or transfers with the "purpose or effect" of undermining the United States' obligation to "ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

On April 9, CIA Director Leon Panetta issued a memo to Congress confirming that the black sites had in fact been closed but that the CIA retains the authority to detain individuals solely "on a short-term transitory basis." Gude explains that there is a difference between "extraordinary rendition," the process by which detainees were rendered to CIA "black sites" or to other third countries where they would likely be tortured, and "rendition," which is the transfer of detainees outside the normal extradition process. The purpose of extraordinary rendition, Gude says, is to keep suspects outside of the justice system, while the purpose of rendition is to transfer them into a country where they can be tried for their alleged crimes.

"The Obama administration has ceased the process of extraordinary rendition, but rendition exists as an option," Gude says, adding that it is not necessarily a bad thing. "There are times when it's not feasible for governments to follow the traditional extradition process, simply because cooperation between the United States and another government is not always possible."

On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union's Jonathan Hafetz who has acted as counsel in several cases involving terrorism detainees, cautions that even the CIA's limited detention authority may still lead to problems. "The suggestion that the CIA has authority to conduct extrajudicial handovers to foreign governments is ambiguous and troubling, as is the statement that the CIA can still conduct 'transitory' detentions."


Verdict: Change for the better, but questions remain.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=report_card_on_civil_liberties


And the fact that this government has been more transparent than any others,
Obama administration wins high marks for ‘transparency’
According to the report authored by Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG, "The cumulative effect of the administration's actions has been to adopt the strongest and most comprehensive lobbying, ethics and transparency rules and policies ever established by an administration to govern its own activities."
http://www.peoplesworld.org/obama-administration-wins-high-marks-for-transparency/


and has reformed procurement policies via the defense Department,

Obama backs defense procurement overhaul
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/obama_backs_def.html

Military procurement reform sweeps through Senate
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/07/military.procurement/index.html

Obama signs weapons procurement reform
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/22/Obama-signs-weapons-procurement-reform/UPI-75731243011243/


while raising the salaries of our Armed Forces,

Congress approves 3.4 percent pay raise for military
http://blog.al.com/live/2009/10/congress_approves_34_percent_p.html

and passing a GI bill of Rights:
New GI Bill sending veterans to school this fall
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-07-31-gi-bill_N.htm?obref=obinsite


while giving 95% of Americans a tax cut, the biggest tax cut for middle class Americans
ever passed......
BIGGEST. TAX CUT. EVER.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016948.php

Leaving Iraq

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/01/05/Leaving-Iraq-Logistics-move-staggering/UPI-25521262732688/

US troops at lowest level since Iraq invasion
invasion in a clear signal the U.S. is wrapping up its nearly seven-year war to meet a deadline for leaving the country, the U.S. military said Tuesday.

The troop reduction comes at a critical time in Iraq as Washington questions the shaky democracy's ability to maintain security in the tense period surrounding March 7 parliamentary elections. Those concerns have only grown with a decision by a vetting committee to bar hundreds of candidates from running because of suspected ties to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party.

The U.S. military plans on maintaining its current 98,000 boots on the ground in Iraq through the elections, 1st Lt. Elizabeth Feste, an army spokeswoman in Baghdad, told The Associated Press.
snip
"The withdrawal pace remains on target for about 50,000 at the end of August 2010," Feste said.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD9DTDLUO0

Afghanistan, shift in priorities

"For the first time the focus is less on killing Taliban and more on sparing Afghan civilians" NYT story about the new Afghanistan strategy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/world/asia/13kabul.html?WT.mc_id=fb_nyt1331&WT.mc_ev=click

Increasingly good news from Afghanistan
The capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar at the same time as NATO launches its offensive in Helmut province is too much of a coincidence to not draw the line between some very big dots.

Baradar is the operation head of the Taliban and he is captured on the eve of the largest offensive in Afghanistan since 2001.

Nato is currently conducting a large offensive centered on Marjah, the largest city controlled by the Taliban with about 75,000 residents.

The strategy for this campaign originated with the Afghan Army and amounts to 'drawing a line in the sand' with NATO/Afghan announcing the campaign ahead of time and communicating details to the population before starting the offensive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x16713


Obama outsmarts the terrorists
President Obama isn't nearly as scared of the terrorists as Bush was—and that’s precisely why al Qaeda is falling apart.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-05/the-dirty-secret-of-the-terror-war/?cid=hp:exc

"DADT....

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," Obama said. "It's the right thing to do." When the president made the remark, cameras showed Defense Secretary Robert Gates standing and applauding, along with many Democratic lawmakers.

Marc Ambinder reports today that the president's directive wasn't just rhetoric -- the administration is already moving forward with a plan to implement the new policy.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

The Senate Armed Services Committee, for the first time in 17 years, convened a hearing today on whether the U.S. military should allow Americans to wear a uniform, regardless of their sexual orientation. It went pretty well, though there are some lingering concerns about implementing a change in policy.

The nation's top two Defense officials called on Tuesday for an end to the 16-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law, a major step toward allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the United States military for the first time in its history.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Gay military rights advocate Lt. Dan Choi Back on Active Duty

"Gay military rights advocate Lt. Dan Choi has been reportedly called back into active duty. Photographer Jeff Sheng, who recently turned his lens on active gay and lesbian service members, confirmed the news in a blog posting on Bilerico.com.



Choi was to appear at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Creating Change conference but could not attend due to his being called to serve."
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/09/Dan_Choi_Back_in_Active_Duty/

Lt. Choi: Other Openly Gay Soldiers Are Being Called Back To Service During Time Of War
Lt. Dan Choi — the DADT advocate who was discharged from the military after he came out as gay on The Rachel Maddow Show — appeared on CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday to discuss his recent call back to training with the National Guard. “Essentially, my commander says, we’re going to war and we need all of the capable soldiers that we could get to train with us,” Choi explained.

Choi said he knew other gay soldiers who were in the process of being discharged but “had been told by their commanders” to come back for the time being. “I know of some of them that are out there. And there’s a lot of people that are in their units that I — I think they realize, look, we’re in a time of war, we’ve got to have everybody that we can.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=178920&mesg_id=178920

"A NEW DAY ON DADT" Keeping it in the news~
2/17/10
Mullen has held three separate town-hall sessions with troops since his testimony on DADT, and the response among members of the military "has been little more than a shrug."

Army Staff Sgt. Peppur Alexander, 33, a 14-year veteran now serving at the U.S. Embassy, told Mullen that she's served with gays and lesbians. More than 13,000 troops have left the military since Congress enacted the policy.

"We have lost good soldiers because of that because they wanted to be who they are," Alexander said. "It's sad."

Mullen has changed the game. His testimony not only positions repeal as a mainstream position of the American military leadership, but it's largely signaled that the change is inevitable.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /


and last but certainly not least,



and two more at least to go!

---------------



If the midterm elections in November turn out to be more like 1994, when Democrats got hammered, than 1982, when Republicans suffered a less costly blow, the GOP will probably be emboldened to double down on its opposition to everything, trying to bring the Obama presidency to its knees on the way to 2012. That would mean real gridlock in the face of a serious crisis. Given the precarious coalitions in our otherwise dysfunctional politics, we could go quickly from one of the most productive Congresses in our lifetimes to the most obstructionist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902516.html

[JNelson6563]

63. Well done Frenchie.

:toast:

[NOLALady]

90. Thanks Frenchie.

:loveya:

[zalinda]

133. Sorry, but most of those links are just crap

or wishful thinking. Posting a lot of links doesn't prove anything except that you posted a lot of links. Obama hasn't done the things he was mainly elected for. People voted for him to stop the wars, reform health care and stop jobs from leaving this country. None of this has happened or even had a step in the right direction.

Back in the primary wars, all of Obama supporters argued that Clinton was a bad choice because she voted for the war, and Obama was against it. Yeah, the all famous speech against the war, which was strangely hard to find. We were beaten over the head with that meme. Now, the song is different, now it's well you didn't listen to him because he said he was going to raise troops in Afghanistan.

Health care reform, yeah right. He was against mandates, until he was for them. He gave away any bargaining power to the insurance industry and drug industry before the House and Senate even started their bills. And, on top of that, he didn't tell them what he wanted, he just said, have at it.

And NAFTA? Hasn't even had a chance to touch that yet, yeah right. He's been so busy giving corporations the run of DC that he hasn't had time to talk them into making a "promise" that they won't export as many jobs.

Oh, and his famous credit card bill? How many people did it hurt when the credit card companies either cut people off or raised their interest rates, before the bill was activated. How's a credit card with 79% interest helping people.

While I don't like Obama. Which is my right. I would have thought better of him if he had exceeded my expectations. He hasn't, he hasn't even come close. He hasn't been a LEADER, and he could have been. That's the shame of it all. Someone on his campaign knew how to promote Obama. That same energy could have been raised again to get real health care for all, not some insurance scam. That same energy could get us out of the middle east. That same energy could stop the bleeding of jobs to other countries. But Obama has done nothing. It's like everyone is fumbling around in a daze, there is no focus. That focus was supposed to be brought by our President, but Obama has been MIA.

zalinda

[Political Heretic]

138. Let's break this down shall we?

I'm so weary of the democratic talking point cut and pastes, and it just astounds me that there are still people out there who take the time to put together such defensive spurious "lists." But the only reason people cut and past six page long lists of things is when they are trying to silence disagreement by hoping no one will be willing to take the time to engage something so needlessly lengthy...

I, however, am willing. And good news! I'm not an all or nothing persons, which means not every response will be to dispute that good things have happened, only to provide much needed context completely absent from your post.

Let's take this information grouped by subject. First, we're going to filter out every cited source that is giving opinion on something yet to be done, or speculating about the future, or providing unsubstantiated opinion commentary about what "might be" some day. Because those aren't "accomplishments." Bogus links with disingenuous, or misleading information will be colored in RED

Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success

Economy in U.S. Grew at 5.7% Pace, Most in Six Years

U.S. Retail Sales Rose 0.5% in January

Jobless Claims Drop Markedly - this article is about a single week decline. This is not the first time there has been a large single week decline, followed by large single week inclines. That's because daily and weekly information fluctuates to rapidly to function as anything other than a talking point. You have other, better information and this is unhelpful.

Blue-Collar Jobs in Demand for 2010 - this is an article from "hotjobs" having nothing to do with politics and giving nothing but anecdotal speculation that essentially translates to "hey we've lost so many white color jobs many people are going back to plumbing"

Administration Launches 35 City Stimulus Tour - this is not a policy "accomplishment"

Data on industry output, home building boost hopes

I supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, with the understanding that - tragically - it still was severely watered down by conservative capitulations and consequently not the full boost to an economy in crisis that it could have been. It still had many positive benefits without any grave harms to working class families.

Further I believe that stimulus has and will continue to have a "softening" effect on this recession. Any substantial spending injection in the midst of a national recession will help ease the depth of the decline. People who object to the broader trajectory of this administration's economic policy make these observations:

1. The total insufficiency and indirect nature of stimulus spending risks leading to a much slower recovery sprawling over many years

2. Weak and capitulating moves on legislation aimed exclusively at job creation risk leading to a jobless recovery

3. Trickle down economics approach favored by contemporary democrats, and favored as the economic policy philosophy of the administration - prioritizing service to wall street and the financial elite first, as the key to American recovery - risks putting us into a "double dip" recession. We are drowning in extremely scary economic indicators. With moratoriums in mortgage rates and obligations about to expire, we should expect a renewed spike in home foreclosures, already (and still) floating around record levels. And the number of short sells of people losing huge amounts of equity to get out from under houses that are worth less than what they still owe in debt is rising, that lose of equity has a dramatic impact on the economy.

4. GDP, is near universally agreed to be one of the worst and most unreliable indicators of economic health that we have by non-conservative economists. So while growth is better than decline when it comes to GDP, its not an "I win" statistic.

But worst of all is the much bigger problem. The entire philosophy behind recovery adopted by this administration and supported by democrats, is a trickle down, wall street first effort to "reboot" the same economy that has been failing ordinary Americans and raising inequality for decades.

It's the fact that rather than bringing "Change we can believe in" the administration is doing everything in its power to resurrect the failed status quo, re-inflating the same old economic bubble and this passing the responsibility for the next bubble burst onto our children. That's part of the problem. These "pro-business pragmatists" occupying every level of the administration believe that the 90s were our "halcyon" days, and they're interests are the interests of their Wall Street buddies.

The reality of the rest of American was that even in this romanticized period of "growth" - wages stagnated or declined for the bottom half of America, the income inequality gap exploded, labor was further crushed, and we lagged further and further behind our industrialized peers across every social justice indicator. Working class families can't afford to reinflate that economic "status quo." This is an example of an area where it is the direction of the administration (and the Democratic Party) that is being questioned, not the speed or quantity of action.

Volcker Op-Ed: Look out, big banks. Change is coming

Volcker Speaks on the Volcker Rule - neither of these links refer to policy. They refer to the opinion of Volcker that have as of yet failed to translate into policy. You'll forgive me if the record of Congress is such that I currently skeptical as to what, if anything, will come from congress on this front. And it actually get's worse than that. As Naked Capitalism Reports, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/02/goldman-morgan-stanley-can-escape-volcker-rule.html">Goldman, Morgan Stanley Can Escape Volcker Rule


....because even with the wrench thrown in by Republican Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, this Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. The deep dysfunction of our politics may have produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record accomplishment.

There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

Any Congress that passed all these items separately would be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress did it in one bill.

Lawmakers then added to their record by expanding children's health insurance and providing stiff oversight of the TARP funds allocated by the previous Congress.

Other accomplishments included a law to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, a credit card holders' bill of rights and defense procurement reform.

The House, of course, did much more, including approving a historic cap-and-trade bill and sweeping financial regulatory changes. And both chambers passed their versions of a health-care overhaul. Financial regulation is working its way through the Senate, and even in this political environment it is on track for enactment in the first half of this year. It is likely that the package of job-creation programs the president showcased on Wednesday, most of which got through the House last year, will be signed into law early on as well. - What a laugh. Celebrating House bills that are dead on arrival as accomplishments? Celebrating health care bills dead on arrival as accomplishments? Speculating about job-creation passage after a year of delays and then ultimate failure of the health care debacle, something that was supposed to be wrapped up before last summer's recess?

Most of this has been accomplished without any support from Republicans in either the House or the Senate -- an especially striking fact, since many of the initiatives of the New Deal and the Great Society, including Social Security and Medicare, attracted significant backing from the minority Republicans.

Democratic ideologies stretch from the left-wing views of Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Maxine Waters in the House to the conservative approach of Ben Nelson in the Senate and Bobby Bright in the House, with every variation in between. Finding 219 votes for climate-change legislation in the House was nothing short of astonishing; getting all 60 Senate Democrats to support any version of major health-care reform, an equal feat. - that's some apology and rationalization, but it does not describe anything that the administration has "done" seeing as how health care has not been passed, and climate change legislation has not been passed (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/80485-climate-bill-buried-under-record-snowfall">Democratic senators say a bill that was once a top priority for the party and for President Barack Obama cannot be dug up again during 2010.)


specific new policies -- such as energy conservation and protection for public lands -- enjoy solid and broad public support. But many voters discount them simply because they were passed or proposed by unpopular lawmakers. In Massachusetts, people who enthusiastically support their state's health-care system were hostile to the very similar plan passed by Congress. Why? Because it was a product of Congress. - this is not a description of policy accomplishment. It's an apology for lack of policy accomplishment.

Most of what was contained here was a defense for not getting quality legislation into law, rather than a list of what the administration has "done." And Congress deserves plenty of outrage and shares responsibility for these failures. But they are failures for the American people.

The pure money spending in environmental technology is a good thing, though it does very little to address our structural problems and contribution to climate instability. We cannot simply "spend" our way out of this problem.

Obama ends Bush-era farm policy
The Obama administration on Thursday gave more job protections to temporary farm workers from both the United States and other countries, ending a Bush-era rule that critics said paid foreigners too cheaply to allow Americans to compete.
"This new rule will make it possible for all workers who are working hard on American soil to receive fair pay while at the same time expand opportunities for U.S. workers," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a news release.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0210/labor_aims...

here is one extremely consequential area where Obama has done just about everything a liberal could ask for -- but done it so quietly that almost no one, including most liberals, has noticed. Obama's three Republican predecessors were all committed to weakening or even destroying the country's regulatory apparatus: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the other agencies that are supposed to protect workers and consumers by regulating business practices.

Now Obama is seeking to rebuild these battered institutions. In doing so, he isn't simply improving the effectiveness of various government offices or making scattered progress on a few issues; he is resuscitating an entire philosophy of government with roots in the Progressive era of the early twentieth century. Taken as a whole, Obama's revival of these agencies is arguably the most significant accomplishment of his first year in office. <...>
<more>
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /


Presented two Budgets that, considering the state of our economy are more Progressive than any budget in 2 decades!
Specifically addressing FDR’s mistake in reducing spending in 1937, Orszag indicated the Administration will not make drastic cuts that will threaten the fragile recovery. The path to deficit reduction is based on reversing the fiscal policies of the last 8 years including allowing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 to expire, ending the fossil fuel subsidies, ending the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, implementing the Fiscal Commision, and instituting the 3 year freeze. In addition, Orszag said strict adherence to PayGo will prevent irresponsible spending as it did in the 90s. This is also the thinking behind the freeze in that departments will have the ability to raise spending provided they find reductions to pay for it. These tactics are expected to reduce the deficit to 3.9% of GDP by 2015, just above the accepted target of 3% of GDP. Even so, in order to set the country on solid ground for the long term, Orszag acknowledged the need to reform health care in order to reduce the costs of Medicaid and Medicare. Health care has the potential of consuming over 10% of GDP by 2050, which is not sustainable.
http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=1162

In generosity, I did not pick this one apart. Obama's budget proposals have certainly been better than previous years. However there's currently not enough support in congress for PayGO, so its meaningless. The spending freeze was a political gimmick, and goes in the complete wrong direction from where we need to be heading if we were to actually tackle the structural failures of our economy. And as has been expressed clearly, multiple times, one of the biggest problems with these budgets is that the reflect a clever rearranging of the deck chairs on a sinking ship, while steadfastly refusing to address the embedded structural injustice of our political and economic system.

Obama budgets slow the pace of increasing suffering of the "other America." And there's no question that a Republican alternative would speed up that pace. But that's just not all we should aspire to, I don't believe. We need to be turning the tide of suffering for poor and working class Americans, not just shuffling the chairs around.

This next thing is such a steaming pile it out to shame anyone putting it out there with a straight face as an "accomplishment list." But its completely predictable, seeing as how its a talking points memo direct from Democrats.

The Inconvenient Truth: A Record of Accomplishment the AP Neglected

-Passed and implemented a Recovery Act that as multiple reports have verified not only saved the economy from the brink but also funded up to 2 million American jobs.

-Provided tax cuts for 95 percent of working families.

-Rebuilt an economy that is growing for the first time in over a year. - "rebuilt" is a bit insulting to the %16.5 unemployment number

-Cut job losses from almost 800,000 a month to 20,000 a month. - Wow, I hope so! But seeing as how that was only based on the jobs report for one single month, and given that job losses fluctuates heavily, this is a fairly misleading talking point.

-Made the largest investment in green technology in history.

-Made the largest investment in education in history. - what has the result of this largest investment been? Much of the "investment" was in the form of discretionary funds to states that many states turned down or diverted! Have we seen substantive improvement in our public schools? Is the problem fixed? No? Then many we should stop touting this bullshit talking point and start getting to work on a serious, comprehensive education overhaul?

-Lifted the ban on stem cell research and restored science to its rightful place.

-Raised fuel standards after years of stagnation and objection.

-Ended predatory credit card practices. - Ended? Seriously? ENDED? Wow. I'm glad to know that. :eyes:

-Made equal pay for equal work more than a platitude with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. - all this act does is extend the amount of time a women has to file a grievance. That's important, but consider this - there is an actual bill in congress that goes directly to addressing pay disparity that still exists among women and men in the workforce, and its dead. Another example of wanting to look like you are doing something without being willing to address structural injustice.

-Expanded health coverage to 4 million more low income American children with the expansion of SCHIP.

-Expanded benefits for loving couples that work at the State Department.

-Lifted the discriminatory, inhumane and unwise ban on immigration of those with HIV/AIDS.

-Started a process to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to allow patriotic Americans to serve and be true to themselves while we fight two wars. - really, this is what we're adding to a list now. "Started a process?" Boy that's impressive.

-Begun to responsibly wind down the war in Iraq. - that of course is simply complete bullshit in the eyes of many. There's nothing responsible about leaving our troops in Iraq almost a decade, nor anything responsible about leaving residual forces in Iraq or non-combat personnel. But what... it gets even better:

-Implemented a new way forward in Afghanistan in the face of withering criticism from the right and the left.

I always love it when the Party brags about defying criticism from the left. I hate to break it to you but the goal shouldn't be implementing a new way forward. The goal should be changing policy away from one that is unjust, costing tax payers billions, making us less safe, killing and wounding our children and slaughtering people in other countries.

-Enhanced American security by repairing our alliances and by restoring the rule of law and our standing in the world. - mmm..how exactly?

-Successfully managed the outbreak of the H1N1 epidemic. Oh. My. God. You've GOT to be kidding me.

-Prohibited lobbyists from serving on important boards and commissions. Lobbyists were all over the place in Washington, including serving in this administration haver getting special "exceptions" from the administrations own policy in order to do so.

-Banned federal lobbyists and political action committees from contributing to the DNC. - so they contribute directly to candidates or to the DCCC instead.

-Enhanced transparency by making all visitors who enter the White House and the names of those with whom they met publicly available. the refused to do this for months and month and months and it was only after immense public pressure that they finally relented - now they are taking credit for doing what they should have been doing from day one?

God how I hate campaign spin from Party headquarters trying to push propaganda rather than have any sort of serious examination of accomplishments and shortcomings.

Report Card on Civil Liberties

I have to stop you right there. I cannot believe you are bringing up Civil Liberties with a straight face. Try http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-issues-report-obama-administrations-civil-liberties-record">this for some perspective.

and has reformed procurement policies via the defense Department,

Obama backs defense procurement overhaul
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligen...

Military procurement reform sweeps through Senate
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/07/military.procure...

Obama signs weapons procurement reform
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/22/Obama-signs-weap... /

Yes he's reformed "procurement policies" instead of, you know, reforming THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

while raising the salaries of our Armed Forces,

Congress approves 3.4 percent pay raise for military
http://blog.al.com/live/2009/10/congress_approves_34_pe...

and passing a GI bill of Rights:
New GI Bill sending veterans to school this fall
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-07-31-gi-bi...

while giving 95% of Americans a tax cut, the biggest tax cut for middle class Americans
ever passed......
BIGGEST. TAX CUT. EVER.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

Very good things, that do not address our structural injustices that are going to bring our country to economic and social collapse. But I'm still glad that they happened.

With one exception. Calling this the "largest middle class tax cut ever" is a bit problematic. First, you get to that figure by counting non-adjusted dollars. Second, I was living just above the poverty line last year. Do you know who much difference my pay check was after these amazing "historic" tax cuts? About 15 bucks. I'm grateful for the extra 15 bucks, but its hardly transforming lives or addressing our crisis of unsustainable structural injustices.

Afghanistan, shift in priorities

"For the first time the focus is less on killing Taliban and more on sparing Afghan civilians" NYT story about the new Afghanistan strategy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/world/asia/13kabul.ht...

Increasingly good news from Afghanistan
The capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar at the same time as NATO launches its offensive in Helmut province is too much of a coincidence to not draw the line between some very big dots.

Baradar is the operation head of the Taliban and he is captured on the eve of the largest offensive in Afghanistan since 2001.

Nato is currently conducting a large offensive centered on Marjah, the largest city controlled by the Taliban with about 75,000 residents.

The strategy for this campaign originated with the Afghan Army and amounts to 'drawing a line in the sand' with NATO/Afghan announcing the campaign ahead of time and communicating details to the population before starting the offensive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Obama outsmarts the terrorists
President Obama isn't nearly as scared of the terrorists as Bush was—and that’s precisely why al Qaeda is falling apart.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-...

Oh brother. Nothing changes the injustice of our escalating this war in the first place, and nothing about our actions there is making our safer in the long run. I'm not sure what's so exciting about the military being able to come up with some effective strategy for killing lots of civilians in the name of driving out the Taliban, when we shouldn't even be there in the first place.

"DADT....

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," Obama said. "It's the right thing to do." When the president made the remark, cameras showed Defense Secretary Robert Gates standing and applauding, along with many Democratic lawmakers.

Marc Ambinder reports today that the president's directive wasn't just rhetoric -- the administration is already moving forward with a plan to implement the new policy.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /

The Senate Armed Services Committee, for the first time in 17 years, convened a hearing today on whether the U.S. military should allow Americans to wear a uniform, regardless of their sexual orientation. It went pretty well, though there are some lingering concerns about implementing a change in policy.

The nation's top two Defense officials called on Tuesday for an end to the 16-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law, a major step toward allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the United States military for the first time in its history.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /


Gay military rights advocate Lt. Dan Choi Back on Active Duty

"Gay military rights advocate Lt. Dan Choi has been reportedly called back into active duty. Photographer Jeff Sheng, who recently turned his lens on active gay and lesbian service members, confirmed the news in a blog posting on Bilerico.com.



Choi was to appear at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Creating Change conference but could not attend due to his being called to serve."
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/09/Dan_... /



Lt. Choi: Other Openly Gay Soldiers Are Being Called Back To Service During Time Of War
Lt. Dan Choi — the DADT advocate who was discharged from the military after he came out as gay on The Rachel Maddow Show — appeared on CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday to discuss his recent call back to training with the National Guard. “Essentially, my commander says, we’re going to war and we need all of the capable soldiers that we could get to train with us,” Choi explained.

Choi said he knew other gay soldiers who were in the process of being discharged but “had been told by their commanders” to come back for the time being. “I know of some of them that are out there. And there’s a lot of people that are in their units that I — I think they realize, look, we’re in a time of war, we’ve got to have everybody that we can.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


"A NEW DAY ON DADT" Keeping it in the news~
2/17/10
Mullen has held three separate town-hall sessions with troops since his testimony on DADT, and the response among members of the military "has been little more than a shrug."

Army Staff Sgt. Peppur Alexander, 33, a 14-year veteran now serving at the U.S. Embassy, told Mullen that she's served with gays and lesbians. More than 13,000 troops have left the military since Congress enacted the policy.

"We have lost good soldiers because of that because they wanted to be who they are," Alexander said. "It's sad."

Mullen has changed the game. His testimony not only positions repeal as a mainstream position of the American military leadership, but it's largely signaled that the change is inevitable.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /

This will be wonderful if and when it happens. It certainly hasn't happened yet. But rather than spending so much time thinking about how wrong it is that gays cannot serve openly in the military, perhaps its time we start thinking about the function and role of our military in the first place and how it contributes to global suffering and makes us hated around the world? That would be even more powerful than ending DADT.

And the problem isn't that Obama hasn't gotten to it yet, and he has three more years. The problem is that Obama is not going to get to it, because its not on his radar. And its not on the Radar of the Democratic Party.

They don't want to address structural injustice because they all BENEFIT from the system as-is.

That's the problem. Obama has three more years to do lots of other deck chair rearranging. And in those three years he seems certain to continue ignoring the sinking ship, along with every other Washington politician agreeing to play the "game" with in certain parameters of status quo "rules."

and last but certainly not least,



and two more at least to go!

Sotomayor's career record in arguably the most critical area for a SC justice - Corporate regulation and laws - leaves much to be desired. In her we got a judge certain to maintain the structural injustices embedded in our society, ensuring that the Supreme Court functions primarily as a protector of privileged interests and operates against the interests of ordinary working people. That she did not vote in favor of the elimination of campaign finance restrictions is a testament to the fact that she is not bat-shit crazy. She is however, a centrist business-favoring pragmatist who can be guaranteed to to the line of the status-quo, interpreting the constitution in a way which favors entrenched privileged interests rather than the people.

[midnight]

140. P.H. structural injustice is a perfect way to describe the state of this country...

Thanks for sharing this info...

[FrenchieCat]

155. Poster posted his opinion about my cites,

and you think he's sharing anything BUT his opinion?
Now see, that's rich.
:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

153. You pit the articles I cite against your opinions, and somehow

You think you've done a job?

Everything I posted, I didn't write....
everything you posted, for the most part are your opinions.

So what you don't like Sotomayor!
Who cares that you don't think the tax cuts were big enough, cause you only got $15.00 in YOUR check.
Too bad you wish the economy would fail to be proven right,
and that you believe that Obama should have reformed the Defense Department,
so procurement reform must mean nothing says you!

The fact is that you think my post was about "What has Obama done for YOU"....
but it wasn't.

Again, you can have your opinions, but that is all that they are.

Continue wishing the downfall of this administration,
if that is what turns you on.....

the fact is that you can't really refute my points
as accomplishments, you just simply don't agree with them!
Well, Tough toot!

[Political Heretic]

158. Yes its true, I have enough policy understanding to respond directly,

rather than compile a cut and paste list of other peoples opinion, half-truths, weasles, waffles and spin - functioning as cheap talking points. Guilty as charged. :)

I'm sorry Frenchie, but if that's all you've got - that I give my opinion on a discussion board, then I'm feeling quite fine about things.

When it comes to the question of the quality of performance of an administration - there's nothing but opinion out there. In some cases, even the description you provided in your links can be factually debated, especially when it comes to those specific "points" claimed by democrats.org. But in many other cases, the facts themselves about things "accomplished" are accurate presentations of facts.

But that's not the point. The opinion isn't about whether the administration has done "anything." The opinion is about whether or not the administration is doing the right things. You're opinion is that they are, and you offer in support of that opinion your collection of commentary, opinion and talking points that support the argument.

Fair enough. Then I too offer my opinion about the veracity of the support your offer, about the opinions you quote, about the half-truth or weasles offered by the Democratic talking points and why I think even a long list of "accomplishments" by this administration misses the point.

My opinion?

It's a lot less about what's getting done (things that in no way address or challenge the fundamental structural failures of our economic and social systems) and a lot more about what's not getting done that is the problem.

My opinion?

We've had too many politicians committed to maintaining the status quo, and not getting too "carried away" with change so that we never managed to address the core structural injustices of our modern political and economic system. Our failure to do so is slowly bankrupting the country, causing exploding levels of income inequality, escalating poverty, flat-lining poor and working class wages and pushing us toward the brink of collapse - all so a tiny percentage of ultra-rich can be even more rich.

This is a problem that didn't start with this President. But its a problem that we can afford to keep ignoring just so we can "root" for our favorite political personalities and their cute families.

My opinion?

We need people with the courage to challenge structural injustice and tackle core economic and social problems more than we need people rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. And that's what we've got in our modern political system. The Democratic Party wants to arrange the deck chairs in a more equitable way, would like to add some deck chairs so that a few more people could find seats, would like the deck chairs to be made in an environmentally friendly way that won't contribute to climate change and so one - all while the ship is sinking. The Republicans on the other hand, want to throw some of the chairs overboard so that they can charge more money for the remaining seats, in fact they might even want to charge passengers a fee to even get onto the deck - all while the ship is sinking.

My opinion?

If the ship wasn't sinking, I'd say that one party was far preferable to the other party. But given the fact that the entire ship is sinking, that really doesn't seem quite as important right now. What seems more important is finding a way to find someone willing to address the fact that the ship is sinking. The means challenging the very fundamentals of late-capitalism, and looking at reversing the unsustainable practices that lead to a decoupling of wages from productivity, that eviscerated the only power workers have (union organizing) that established the total dominance of corporations, and the ridiculous financial instruments created by wall street to explode short term wealth creation for a tiny few at the expense of the overall sustained health of working american families and the broader economy in the long term.

That's my opinion.

And when you object by simply pointing out that it is my opinion, I think pretty much everyone writing their opinion on an internet discussion board simultaneously say, "yes....and?" :shrug:

[Cha]

164. Maybe you should wake up and

open your eyes..look around. THere's all kinds of things going on that you don't know about.

[impik]

45. "He cared, Obama doesn't". Such a stupid comment.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

72. FDR's opposition didn't have that either though. (nt)

[Cha]

163. Oh, "Obama doesn't care"...ohhhh

That's just not true.

[Forkboy]

36. I see two choices. Either Obama is nicer than he should be (not a negative outside of politics)...

..or he believes in the things he's doing wholeheartedly. The landmine issue still messes with me. He worked against it as a Senator....

[Yurovsky]

38. Party discipline over the past year would've made a big difference...

and I guarantee you that FDR didn't have to worry about members of his OWN party fighting his initiatives.

The Democrats had enough votes in both the house & senate to do whatever needed to be done. They just lacked the courage.

[stillwaiting]

69. I don't think it's the Democrats lacking courage that's the problem.

I believe that not a small number of elected Democrats simply have zero desire to enact progressive legislation. Ever.

In other words, corporatists have successfully infiltrated the party that was supposed to look out for the average persons interests.

If they don't have the desire to do something, when they don't do it it's not because they lack courage.

It's because they are a fraud.

And there seems to be no lack of frauds in our Party right now.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. FDR didn't have that either.

He simply had enough Democrats that it didn't matter. But he fought with them ALL the time.

[Bette Noir]

124. Thatt 60-vote majority only existed on paper.

In reality, you couldn't count on Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, or several others. We had 54 reliable votes, at most.

[Yurovsky]

175. Hopefully 54 will get closer to 60 this fall...

I know the conventional wisdoem is that the party in the WH loses seats, but Chimpy proved that's not always the case. In addition, I believe that the DINOs that have bailed may make it more likely that an actual progressive Democrat gets elected in their seat.

I'm not say we have to have "purity" tests, but shared values are a must and should be non-negotiable. Pro-choice, pro-union, pro-human (read: GLBT) rights, pro-peace... we need to be bound together by the positive things we share, and most enlightened people do.

Otherwise you might as well go join up with Pat Robertson's pals...

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Wow. This thread has been very instructive for me.

I thank everyone who has responded, whether supportive of Obama or critical. I love DU. :loveya:

[Lilyeye]

44. Thank you so much for sharing.

People here are always slamming Obama for not being like FDR. Glad to see a person ,who was around then, speak on this subject.

[duhneece]

141. My thoughts exactly

nt

[lamp_shade]

49. Wonderful post. I'm bookmarking it.

[democracy1st]

50. K & R

[pampango]

51. Great post, Hello_Kitty. Thanks. Always nice to hear some historical perspective from someone

whose heart is in the right place.

[Political Heretic]

52. Explaining what's wrong doesn't magically make wrong right.

Great. We once again identify all the problems and obstacles that keep injustice institutionalize and suffering on the rise.

Sooner or later its going to have to stop being "Obama is doing good given the circumstances" and start being "how much longer are we going to continue kissing the whip of structural injustice? How much longer are we going to explain why not even Washington Democrats are willing to challenge the "rules" of the game that are so fully rigged in favor of the privileged few at the expense of the many working class individuals and families?"

Within a structurally unjust system, Democrats play a better game than Republicans. But what that means for ordinary Americans is their suffering increases more slowly under Democrats than Republicans - but it still increases.

Exponentially exploding income inequality, skyrocketing productivity decoupled from wages which have stagnated or declined for the "other America." Highest poverty rate among our twenty peer industrialized nations, highest child poverty rate, highest elderly poverty rate, highest infant mortality rate. We're bankrupting our economy and fueling our impending economic collapse by ludicrous global militarism that we can't afford and which does not make us safer (nor is that the primary goal; the primary goal being securing the economic interests of the financial elite.)

We have a democracy in name only where our politicians are bought and bribed by the tiny faction of society able to spend multi millions financing campaigns, influencing the political media and putting three lobbyists in Washington for every one legislator.

When is it going to stop being about the politics of personality? When is it going to stop being about one group of people defending Obama the man, and another group of people attacking Obama the man? Will there ever be a day when the goals are bigger than just proving that Obama the man is scoring political victories or that Obama the man is making political mistakes?

Our problems are so much larger than that. And yet it feels like when people start to really talk about our structural crisis, and start doing institutional analysis - examining the structure itself and the money interests shaping the scope and trajectory of public policy - then suddenly scores of people rush in acting as though someone had just made a personal insult against Barack Obama the man and that outrage must be rectified.

It's never crossed my mind to think that Barack Obama was a bad man. And yet the fact remains that currently neither Washington democratic legislators, nor national democratic leadership, nor the team assembled to be the Presidential administration is currently prioritizing the needs of low income and working class families ahead of the whims of the financial elite.

This was a problem before the current president took the oath of office, but it hasn't become any less of a problem today. It's the root issue on which serious progress in any other area depends. So are we every going to get serious about confronting the failure of the modern Democratic Party? Or are people just going to keep arguing about what kind of man Obama is?

[DisgustedInMN]

58. Well said.

Whether or not I like, love, idolize, dislike, hate, or detest any given politician on a personal level isn't even on the page for me. It's ALWAYS about what they actually DO and not about what they SAY. The OP sounds very much to me as just another excuse du joir. "Oh my, the po'po' man can't get it done, 'cuz 2% of the population are vocal racists." Sorry, I find that almost as demeaning as the nonsense spewed by those racists. One I will agree with from the OP, BO is most definitely no FDR. FDR had a pair, BO appears to have been neutered by his corporate owners.

[quark219]

62. +1 Well said. [N/T]

[proudohioan]

71. Bravo!!!!!!

While I personally adore, admire and respect Barack Obama the man, I whole heartedly agree with Political Heretic with the issues and problems stated. My disappointment with Barack Obama the President stems from a seeming lack of desire to confront those root issues. It's the general tone, as opposed to the actual things Obama has or has not done.

[fascisthunter]

76. personally, I feel pity for those who make excuses for the man

it is sad how such intelligent folks bs themselves the way they do. If people want REAL CHANGE they are going to have to knock off the adulation for a man and demand he represents the people and not corporate America. Trust me, they won't because they too bought into the game, a game rigged against "We the People".

[ProSense]

88. Oh brother.

Sooner or later its going to have to stop being "Obama is doing good given the circumstances" and start being "how much longer are we going to continue kissing the whip of structural injustice? ...Within a structurally unjust system, Democrats play a better game than Republicans. But what that means for ordinary Americans is their suffering increases more slowly under Democrats than Republicans - but it still increases.

Now, exactly how does all the "stuctural injustices" translate to disproving that "Obama is doing good given the circumstances"?

Also, when did all the "stuctural injustices" become Obama's fault? In your meandering comment you state that this isn't about Obama...

Obama the man, and another group of people attacking Obama the man? Will there ever be a day when the goals are bigger than just proving that Obama the man is scoring political victories or that Obama the man is making political mistakes?

Our problems are so much larger than that. And yet it feels like when people start to really talk about our structural crisis, and start doing institutional analysis - examining the structure itself and the money interests shaping the scope and trajectory of public policy - then suddenly scores of people rush in acting as though someone had just made a personal insult against Barack Obama the man and that outrage must be rectified.

Yet you entered a thread premised on the fact that the challenges Obama faces are complicated by various factors just to say this isn't about Obama. You need to stop pretending the criticisms are just generic discussions about the structural crisis.

It's never crossed my mind to think that Barack Obama was a bad man. And yet the fact remains that currently neither Washington democratic legislators, nor national democratic leadership, nor the team assembled to be the Presidential administration is currently prioritizing the needs of low income and working class families ahead of the whims of the financial elite.

A "bad man"? Yeah, this is all about long standing "structural injustices," not Obama.

Obama is constantly being accused of being a "sell out" and "weak," He's attack for not leading and for being completely unconcerned about Americans. The minute someone counters with a dose of reality, as this OP does, it is suddenly not about Obama.

He's the current President, he has to deal with the circumstances, facts and reality, even if his critics refuse to.

[Syntheto]

54. So, let met get this straight...

...this elderly woman (and you) are wistful because there's not enough of a crisis for Barry to exploit and effect sweeping social change, such as FDR was able to do because of the Great Desperation?

Too bad the Administration doesn't have the power over the press that Roosevelt had (Halberstam's The Powers that Be).

[RayOfHope]

59. "Barry"? You just gave yourself away. nt

[salguine]

66. "Gave yourself away" as what!?

[YOY]

70. There's only one kind of person who calls Obama "Barry".

And if I say what kind it would be against DU rules.

[Lorien]

75. Really? Bill Maher calls him Barry all the time

especially when he plays footsie with the Repugs.

[YOY]

77. Bill has better things to do than post on DU though...

And nobody is playing footsie with Repugs here really.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

108. Bill Maher's a fucking anti-vaccer kook.

:shrug:

[polichick]

67. +1

[Syntheto]

168. Oh, really? You just gave yourself away...

...as one of those people who don't think very critically about what's going on and who give THE PRESENT RESIDENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE some sort of mythological status... What should I call him? The President Of The United States, in every sentence, with some sort of hushed respect? I don't like "POTUS", because, well, it sounds like a slang term for vagina in Latin.

So, I don't have any respect for him, so what? Is that what DU is about? Don't post here unless you are prepared to adore our Lord and Master, who only appears useless; it's not his fault, he inherited a problem, he's not obligated to fix it, he had no idea how bad it was, blah, blah, blah.

Okay, it was bad, but now he's talking nonsense about spending cuts and new taxes now, when that stimulus package was a big mistake, and it was known as such then. Who made out? How many people got jobs? He's practically begging to get the other side to join in some sort of spending oversight committee, but it comes across as the teenager who max-ed out his credit card and now needs help from some adults to get his finances straight. None of them are going to participate. Why should they? From a political standpoint (and that's what 'politics' is about, hello?) they're going to let him hoist himself by his own petard. (No, I didn't say retard, but the visual imagery is thought-provoking, no?)

If talk of nuclear power plants was discussed under Bush, this board would have been rightfully seething with the contempt such a proposal has and should always garner and you know it... However, suddenly Barry comes up with this nonsense, and it's a Plan. What hypocrisy! I have been amazed at how willingly this administration has turned their back on the environmental movement; people who helped Barry get elected.

Loyalty doesn't appear to be one of the president's strong suits, and all organized systems of human social interaction, from bake sales to national government are predicated on this basic principle.

Are you one of those foolish people worshiping at the Altar of President Barack Obama (carefully avoiding the middle name and initial, of course), that whatever he says is the way and truth? That he's somehow different and more noble than any other politician that's ever come along? Are you still in that campaigning mode, and truly believe that this guy is THE ONE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR? If so, then you're frankly what's known as a fool.

Obama made his historical entry as the first black president in America. That's what he'll be known for. So far, he has nothing else to show for his tenure in this TEMPORARY OFFICE. He's nice window dressing, but we need somebody with some cajones in there, who can make a difference. Ironically, Hillary Clinton comes across as having a bigger pair, and might for all I know.

All Barry has done has stood there and said with dignity and soaring rhetoric: I"m going to do this, and that, and the other thing." The herd is impatient, because none of it has been done. If he can't do the job, then he won't get reelected, and his racial distinction will just be an asterisk next to his meager stats. Get over it, and start looking for someone who can take the standard and plant it on top of the wall. Barry doesn't seem to be able to make a real, fundamental difference.

Finally, I'm older than Barry, and I'll damned well call him anything I want to, and furthermore, while DU is a part of my day, it's not sacrosanct.

[RayOfHope]

170. That's quite a bit of assumptions made about me from one tiny sentence.

All of it wrong.


I did take a peek at your posting history though.

Do I worship at the altar of "St. Barry", as you have called him elsewhere? I'm a teacher, and less than pleased with his pick of Arne Duncan and this Race to the Top crap. So really, you wasted plenty of words making an incorrect guess about me.

[WI_DEM]

80. Maybe FDR was helped because his margins in congress were much larger than "Barry's"

We're talking huge majorities for FDR. And, also Republicans weren't as rigid right wing as they are now. There were quite a few progressive Republicans in the House and Senate.

1932--60 dems, 35 Rep in Senate; 313-117 Dem majority in House
1934--69 dems, 25 Rep in Senate; 322-103 Dem majority in House
1936--76 dems, 17 Rep in Senate; 334-88 Dem majority in House

Also I think your comment about an elderly woman being "wistful" for more crisis stinks and tells a lot about you. The woman was just explaining why FDR had more ability to get things done (with huge margins supporting him in congress) than Obama who has to contend with 7-8 conservative dems.

[Alcibiades]

86. The nature of the Senate has changed as well

Party composition of the 73rd Congress:

In the Senate:
59 Democrats 36 Republicans 1 Farmer-Labor

In the House:
311 Democrats 117 Republicans 5 Farmer-Labor

The 111th Congress:
In the Senate:
57 Democrats 41 Republicans 2 Independent

In the House:
255 Democrats 178 Republicans

The numbers in the Senate are not too much different, though FDR did enjoy a much larger majority in the House than Obama has. The main difference?

Filibusters (OK, cloture motions, but whatever) in 111th Congress: 75 (so far)
Filibusters in 73rd Congress: 0

This despite the fact that a filibuster needed fewer votes to uphold in the Senate in 1933 than 2009.

[EVDebs]

151. Not really. The Bonus Army March of '32 resulted in the Senate voting down what the House passed.

This then led to the police riot and burning down of the squatter's camp at Anacostia Flats.

I'm imagining the GOP will try to set up a similar squatter's camp in '12 just prior to the election.

[Alcibiades]

171. But that's the thing: they actually had a vote

Much of this president's agenda has not even gotten to that point, because the minority has abused the filibuster. Back then the filibuster was pretty much reserved for use by southerners seeking to deny equality to black Americans: today, they use it for everything.

[Captain Hilts]

100. Cons Southern Dems tied FDR's hands. Obama's majority is much stronger than Clinton's, but

the times are different.

It's not a valid comparison among them.

[4_TN_TITANS]

68. Good thread...k/r

Remember a documentary about the dust bowl. People and their homes were literally buried in dust - dust in the food, hair, beds, children suffocating on dust. People were beyond desparate and had no interest in fake 'national movements' like tea-parties.

We have to give Obama that - times they have a changed.

[WI_DEM]

78. People also forget the FDR had HUGE margins in both the Senate and House

to get his legislation passed. Much bigger than Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

97. Yes and no. The southern Dems were very conservative. Left over Bull Moosers

among Republicans were more loyal than a lot of the Southern Dems.

The key was the crisis was more serious.

And, if your argument is valid, then it must be noted that Obama has a much greater majority than Clinton had, so should be expected to do more. I don't think that's fair to either man.

[Land Shark]

154. not true. FDR had a republican majority upon entering office and passed new deal IMMEDIATELY

He built his large majorities BECAUSE OF (or in spite of) the New Deal. take your pick. But he didn't start out strong.

[yurbud]

87. I buy the part about the aristocratic name, but not the white skin. The racists who hate Obama

would respect ANY Democratic president.

[Captain Hilts]

98. You mean DISrespect any Dem prez as they did Bubba. nt

[yurbud]

105. thank you for the ''dis''!

[Captain Hilts]

109. You bet, bud!

[DemoTex]

89. When the dust of the heartland descended on DC and Wall Street, things got easier for FDR.

Until the big dust storms of the plains reached "civilization," the dust bowl was just a problem of Llano Escatado and its farmers. The Depression was ravaging the cities as well as the hinterland, for sure, but the fat cats and robber barons could care less about that. In fact, it was the robber barons' railroads' land rushes and wheat price speculation during WW-1 that set up the dust bowl (read The Worst Hard Time by Timothy Egan).

But when the dust started obscuring the sun in Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, things turned. When ships at sea in the Atlantic had to deal with dust storms from the central plains of the US, a few people took notice. FDR's opponents cut him a little slack. Then came Hitler, war in Europe, and - eventually - Peal Harbor and WW-II; all that made FDR's enemies happy. They loved the riches that war brought them (the Bu$h family included).

FDR might not have had to deal with racism, but - ironically - he was the target of many anti-Semitic attacks. Most of the anti-Semitism came from the south, especially from Oklahoma's martial law-loving governor William Henry David "Alfalfa Bill" Murray. Murray's strong suit was fomenting hate (sound familiar?). His campaign slogan was "Corporations, Carpetbaggers, and Coons." Murray hated blacks almost as much as he hated Jews. And, oh!, how he hated the Roosevelt family (it started with Teddy).

"Alfalfa Bill" ran for president in 1932, against FDR (he toned down his 3-C slogan for national consumption). He loved to call Roosevelt a Jew, although he knew that FDR was a gentile Episcopalian blue-blood. But the lie caught on and many southerners came to think Roosevelt was Jewish. The ultimate irony was that FDR became their savior (although few would ever admit it).

Geri Emmett gets it, because she lived it. To think that she was born about the time of WW-1, was almost twenty when the Black Sunday dust storms hit (April 14, 1935), probably witnessed the westward exodus of the Oklahomans through her state, suffered the Great Depression, probably voted for FDR a few times (and many other Democrats since then), WW-2, etc., etc., sends chills down my spine.

[Captain Hilts]

92. No Eleanor.

FDR: Party on, Eleanor.
ER: Party on, Franklin.

[Captain Hilts]

99. Yes and no. Southern Democrats were VERY conservative. His majority wasn't

quite that great in real life. They really tied his hands at times. Even when public opinion was strongly against them - such as with the anti-lynching bill. FDR would not utter a peep in favor of the anti-lynching bill even though 75% if those polled supported it because of the Southern Dems, and the measure did not pass.

It was the extreme times that empowered him more than anything.

[liberation]

102. So we went from "yes we can" to "no he can't because...."

It is as if JFK had given his speech on why we chose to go to the moon because it was hard and not easy, and then his admin had spent the rest of the decade reminding us that the reason why we can't even build a space rocket it is because "it is very hard and difficult."


The main reason why Obama is not FDR is a very simple one: Obama is not interested in emulating or being FDR. Has he said anything in public regarding FDR? Not that I am aware of, he has however gone on the record praising Reagan. Now we can all tap dance our way around that fact all we want...

[zipplewrath]

110. Exactly

"Yes we can" to "maybe we might, if it's not too hard, and the GOP doesn't get in our way".

Obama has spoken most often of Lincoln. His second most common reference is to Reagan. His third is to Bush II but not in a good way.

References to Lincoln always concern me because, as a president, he was a mess in many ways. He has been idolized and idealized since that time. And if one is speaking of the ideal which he represents, fine. But if one is talking about execution of the office, Lincoln wouldn't be my first example.

References to Reagan concern me because, in the end, Reagan was about saying one thing, and doing another. And much like Lincoln, he is becoming more myth than reality.

Quite honestly, if one wants examples of ideal presidents, in no particular order, FDR, LBJ, Washington and Jefferson would be the ones I'd prefer to hear about. Each had their faults, failings and areas in serious need of improvement. But good god, give me those guys over any of the ones Obama keeps talking about.

[leftstreet]

120. +1

[YOY]

125. +1

n/t

[Political Heretic]

132. This is exactly right.

[mimitabby]

106. thanks for sharing wisdom!

[Javaman]

113. Sometimes I ponder, (not that I want it) another 4 years of republican rule...

instead of Obama, just so the nation could have slipped completely into a massive life crushing depression.

Just so it could finally put the republican party to death.

Yes, we the people would suffer massively. But the party of "no" would have hopefully vanish from the earth for a very long time.

[4lbs]

115. Even with all that, FDR was still obstructed.

"FDR had a Democratic majority in Congress that dwarfed that which we have now. Much of the country was in utter poverty and desperation"


Even with all that, FDR was still forced to compromise on some leglislation, and also blocked by the US Supreme Court, which wasn't as willing to accept as radical sweeping change of new leglislation that he, Congress, and the American people were.

[2 Much Tribulation]

131. FDR proposed the New Deal with Republican Senate majorities, then built that to 76 Dem senate votes.

How much did he truly "compromise" the New Deal? Not fundamentally. He took courageous action against majority opposition in the Senate and a conservative coalition that controlled the House from 1937 til past the end of Roosvelt's life and four presidential terms.

[BenjaminFranklin]

126. Dems need to kwitcherbichen

and get behind the pres. It's ok to disagree with policies but we've got to show a united front or we're going to get a platter of ass handed to us in November,

[Land Shark]

128. THat doesn't feel to me like a huge distinction with FDR's situation, more like excuse-making

FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court that was hostile to him. A later ruling led to the saying a fix in time saves nine (supreme court justices).

[defendandprotect]

129. I disagree -- "Obama: the stimulus has saved us from a depression" ---

that was the original headline yesterday --

"the stimulus has saved us from a depression" ---

Quite quickly that last word was changed.

I also noted that in remarks made by Sen. Byron Dorgan in referring

to a "recession" in a way which more indicated a depression.

IMO, the Elites figured out that if you create a universal depression, it

doesn't work in their interests.

What I see them doing is creating depression for certain segments of the

population which others continue to live rather normally. But steadily, more

and more Americans are thrown in to the pits of poverty.

Wages have been stagnant since the 1970's . . . so you can see how long they

have been working on this --

What's at stake? Control of the planet -- all of its wealth, all of the natural

resources -- no critics and slave labor.


In the "Great Depression" most everyone was suffering the same thing --

Yet, many workers blamed themselves!

There was at that time, however, THIRD PARTY opposition in socialism.

And those visions -- also pushed by Huey Long who was also killed -- and later

by former VP Henry Wallace and others moved the government to the left.

I'm not saying that FDR wasn't the nation's hero -- I'm saying that he pretty

much had no choice. And, many think he did not go far enough, of course, in moving

completely away from capitalism and merely modifying it. Unregulated capitalism,

as we've just seen again, is merely organized crime.

Does it deserve yet one more chance to bankrupt our Treasury, our nation, its citizens?

I don't think so--

So I strong disagree with the summation offered here --

The Elites do regularly follow patterns, but they are not as dumb as we are

"in doing the same thing over and again and expecting different results" --

i.e., continuing to cast our votes for the "lesser of evils" and expecting change!!

[2 Much Tribulation]

130. Totally UNTRUE: "FDR had a Democratic majority in Congress that dwarfed that which we have now."

FDR was first elected in 1932, along with a Republican MAJORITY in the Senate of 49-48, and 1 Farmer-Labor. When FDR decided to run in 1931 it was a huge Republican majority in the Senate of 56-39, and 1 Farmer-Labor.

FDR went right to work on the New Deal anyway.

The reaction? The "traditional" loss of seats in the first off-year election? Hell, no.

The 59th Congress shifted in a landslide to 59 Democrat, 36 Republican and 1 Farmer-Labor.

Then what happened as the New Deal set in?

74th Congress (1935-1937)

Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (25 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive

AND THEN FOUR TERMS HAPPENED FOR FDR. It doesn't appear WWII was necessary for that really at all.


75th Congress (1937-1939)

Majority Party: Democrat (76 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (16 seats)

Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76th Congress (1939-1941)

Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (23 seats)

Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77th Congress (1941-1943)

Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (28 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96 http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

The New Deal comprised the economic programs passed by Congress during the first term of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States, from 1933 to his reelection in 1937. Few new programs were enacted after 1936, and many agencies were disbanded during World War II. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the 3 Rs: relief, recovery and reform. That is, relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic party the majority, with its base in liberal ideas, big city machines, and newly empowered labor unions. The Republicans were split, either opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, or accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most American elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

The conservative coalition remained a thorn in FDRs side at all times, and he proposed the New Deal with a Republican majority in the Senate as well. There's no excuse for lack of political leadership.

[ProSense]

135. What spin!

FDR was first elected in 1932, along with a Republican MAJORITY in the Senate of 49-48, and 1 Farmer-Labor. When FDR decided to run in 1931 it was a huge Republican majority in the Senate of 56-39, and 1 Farmer-Labor.

What does when he ran have to do with it? When he took office there were 59 Democrats and two years later he had 69.

73rd Congress (1933-1935)

Majority Party: Democrat (59 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor

Total Seats: 96


74th Congress (1935-1937)

Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (25 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

Obama started with 56 Democrats and 2 Independents. He gained wo Democrats when Franken was seated and Specter switched.

Still, how many Republicans voted in lockstep against New Deal legislation?

This is a very different time.

[omega minimo]

147. Yes this is a very different time when the Robber Barons are inside the Government

rather than outside.

[Cha]

162. Yes, of course, it's a different time and that's what the woman

in the OP was saying.

And, it's not over yet as a few around here would like to think.

[omega minimo]

145. Oh you and your pesky "facts"

:yourock:

[november3rd]

134. Wish I could Agree

Really, FDR had a MUCH friendlier corporate media, too. Still, these aren't the only differences.

Roosevelt was true to his base and never stopped fighting for them, never sought compromises with positions he felt were wrong.

[Mithreal]

137. I share your sentiments. Of course, the situations aren't identical.

I am not buying the whole white skin argument and much of the rest seem like excuses.

Appealing to authority doesn't really work for me here either.

I will give something for others to attack, the people who are most "supportive" of our President are the ones most likely susceptible to appeals of authority, that's my gut take. Can I really blame them for their malfunction in this regard, I am hesitant.

[omega minimo]

142. Yeah, NOW "people are losing everything and everything's covered in PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT'

:thumbsdown:

[Mithreal]

143. +1

[Cha]

165. Not true.

[omega minimo]

176. It's smoke and mirrors. One puff and the illusion is gone.

[Cha]

177. You poor poor things.

[Grand Taurean]

144. Rich, power, and a traitor to his class.

That is what we need at this time.

[Nikki Stone1]

150. And FDR didn't give 7 billion in taxpayer money (future debt) to his banker friends

So, yeah, they are different. :)

[Cha]

166. Of course, they're different and like the woman in the OP

I'm proud of the President and think he's doing a great job.

[pnorman]

152. "The bottom line was that FDR was in a much better position to effect sweeping changes....

... than Obama could ever hope to be." Quibble about other things, but that much is undeniable.

FDR not only had a FAR more compelling electoral win, but his "Economic Royalists" enemies were largely in shame-faced disarray, for at lest the first year. His potential DINOs, the later to be Dixiecrats, were still on board and in full populist mode. And a substantial wing of the Republican Party, the Progressives, were actively supporting much of his New Deal legislation. The American Liberty League, and that "Plot against The White House" were at least a year in the furure.

Please consider all that, before writing Obama off. Instead, give him some much needed support, "critical" as it may be, at least for the first half of this year.

(Full disclosure: I just turned 80 yesterday, so I my be foolishly biased towards my fellow elderly farts)

[Land Shark]

156. No, the bottom line is FDR passed the New Deal immediately after election w/ republican Senate MAJ

When he passed the New Deal he absolutely did not have a "large majority" in the Senate he didn't even have a majority in the Senate! Morever, despite building a large Senate majority after passing New Deal Legislation, he was dogged throughout his administration in the House by the "conservative coalition" - a bipartisan regressive coalition we can readily imagine based on politics in recent decades.

[pnorman]

157. I'll stnd by my original assertion.

and that "bipartisan regressive coalition" didn't really manifest itself until 1937/1938. The ostensible "rallying cry" was that so called "Court Packing" plan.

All I'm saying is: "Give Obama a fair chance, at least for the next 5 or 6 months or so!"

[Mithreal]

159. .

Happy belated Birthday, you old fart. :hi:

I don't entirely agree especially when it comes to pushing Obama and his "supporters," but otherwise yeah.

"Please consider all that, before writing Obama off. Instead, give him some much needed support, "critical" as it may be, at least for the first half of this year."

:thumbsup:

[pnorman]

169. "Elderly fart", puleaze! Let's keep things civil here ar DU!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: Right back at ya!

[uponit7771]

173. Wha!??!! F**K FACTS!!! /sarcasm <- cause it needs to be said around here

[Obamacare]

178. The lady in the OP story

was right, FDR was protected by his WHITE SKIN, end of story. Its also called white privilege and the complexion for the protection. Its a proven fact that in times of economic crisis, the white majority displays xenophobia behavior. It all makes sense now, how else would one explain guns flying off the shelfs, high membership in groups like stormfront and white nationalism, the teabag racist etc etc I could go on and on. And we have a far far right wing channel that fans the flames of hatred, anti-immigrant, homophobia etc. I just hope that the economy recovers soon, I just fear what this country will become.