Dilemma of always supporting Obama is that it requires changing positions

[CreekDog]

I supported nearly all of Obama's campaign positions.

I also supported his positions in the early months of his administration.

However, to continue supporting him, I must now:

-support expansion of offshore oil drilling
-support changes to Medicare and Social Security that reduce the benefits to recipients (which I thought his campaign said he was against)
-support delaying or postponing Clean Air Act mandated updating of air quality standards (a new position, similar to Bush actually)
--on those standards, the standards are expected to be as strong as current science suggests and that's why they get lower each time because the more scientists learn, the more they learn about the dangers of pollution (cost benefit analysis to set Clean Air Act standards is not legal by the way. not just people, but even damage to trees, they've found, occurs at levels far below the current legal standard)
-support discretionary spending cuts in programs that help lower income people
-support reductions in Medicaid
-support revenue neutral reductions in the corporate tax rate (where did that come from?)
-say that his economic policies w/ reduced or nonexistent aggregate stimulus will result in significantly reduced unemployment (his original stimulus proposals would have, by the way)

Even if I could honestly take all those positions, it may not be enough, since part of the strategy is to appear reasonable by taking positions that liberals won't share. If we all moved in his direction, would he need to move yet further right to fulfill this strategy?

But let's suppose it was enough.

I simply cannot honestly make phone calls and credibly state talking points about delaying cleaner air, and reducing Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. and reducing the corporate tax rate or expanding offshore oil drilling (especially without appropriate new regulations on drilling safety).

I'd have to lie in order to say that I support those things. :shrug:

Or I can stay silent and bide my time. Perhaps I can do that --but how many do you know that can? And considering many of us were in battleground states, or calling them, or giving money, how far is all this going to get (at 9% unemployment) without our vocal support? And if you're saying that, "well 70%+ of liberal Democrats approve..."...well if a pollster calls me, I'll likely say yes, I approve unless he takes even worse positions --he's still running and appointing in many good ways. But on the big items, the ones that OFA would like my support of --I can't pull that off and my conscience tells me I should not try.

:shrug:

[ibegurpard]

1. absolutely

he lost me at healthcare "reform"
how much more do we have to give away?

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[RBInMaine]

3. So support a fringe candidate, or stay home, and either way help the GOP.

[CreekDog]

4. where did i say that?

in fact what did i actually say about how i would answer a phone poll of Obama approval and how i would vote in 2012?

what did i actually say?

the dishonest thing you're doing is saying what you think someone like me is saying when i actually said the opposite. which means that anything you say about me is at best uninformed and at worst, an intentional lie.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Do you think the President would be proud of you talking that way in his name?

:eyes:

NGU.

[RandomKoolzip]

53. Fringe!

Yay!

[Exilednight]

68. You're telling people not to vote? That's just wrong on so many levels. What people do, even if

it's vote for a third party candidate, is still part of the democratic process. You might not like it, and they may make the wrong choice, but voting is everyone's civic responsibility and should be encouraged at all costs.

[Supersedeas]

75. change positions and cheerlead OR stay home--you'll hear alot of that around here

[Mr Deltoid]

77. Obama is the one taking the fringe positions on everything

Wake up

[Cosmocat]

5. Look ...

1) Again, I think people wanted to project some great progressive monster on him, and it just was not what he campaigned on. He campaigned on a LOT of general stuff, but overall, if you did not WANT to hear something, what you hear heard was his main point was simply being the adult in the room. Like it or not, THAT is what he has been the last 2 1/2 years.

2) YES, he is too cozy with wall street for my taste, but again, I saw that BEFORE he got elected.

3) He has not drawn lines where I wanted him to at times, too, and I have been disappointed. That being said, his biggest issue is this minor thing called the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. What people just do not get is that he is 1, and they are 535. Half of which are TOTALLY united, 100 percent, with one vision, to destroy him. The other half is split among an odd numbers of decent folks trying to do the right thing, an odd number that is bought by the same people who have bought his opposition party, and an odd number of people who are scared of their own shadows.

Again, I get some disappointments in him. But, his biggest issue is congress.

4) He could shout, scream, do whatever dramatics, it is not going to change what congress is/can do.

5) That being said, when he had a democratic house and senate, he got more progressive legislation pushed through than any president in decades, MANY decades. He has done A LOT of good.

Again, he is NOT perfect. He has disappointed me at times. But, it is just surreal seeing DEMOCRATS fall into some kind of abyss about him because of what the REPUBLICANS are doing.

This overtly negative tide by progressive against him has come ...

SINCE THE Rs TOOK THE HOUSE !!!

Bueller, Bueller ...

[stuckinarut]

8. I only wish that were the case.

"I will promise you this: that if we haven't gotten our troops out by the time I'm president it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. I will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007

"Close down Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, say no to renditions, no to wireless wiretaps..." - Barack Obama, November 14, 2007

"When I promise that I... we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, 4, 5, 6 and 7 -- so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war." - Barack Obama, 2008

"Iran, they spend 1/100 of what we spend on the military. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us." - Barack Obama, May 18, 2008

"I think it's time for us to end the embargo on Cuba. I think this because, if you think about what is happening internationally, our planet is shrinking. And our biggest foreign policy challenge -- and it feeds into the battle on terrorism and it feeds into issues of trade and our economy -- is how do you make sure that other countries and developing nations are providing sustenance for their people, human rights for their people and the basic structure of government for their people and are stable and secure so that they can be partners in a bright future for the entire planet." - Barack Obama, 2008

"I've said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world." - Barack Obama, 60 Minutes (2008) (Guantanamo is still open, the US is using foreign nations to carry out torture, when it isn't committing it itself.)

"And as President I'm going to make it impossible for Congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws while no one's looking. Because when I'm President meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public - no more secrecy - that's a commitment I make to you as President. When there's a tax bill being debated in Congress, you will know the names of the corporations that would benefit and how much money they would get. And we will put every corporate tax break and every pork barrel project online for every American to see. You'll know who asked for them and you can decide whether your representative is actually representing you." - Barack Obama, 2008 (Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident. It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.link)

"....create jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow. Jobs that will help us end our dependence on foreign oil and may save the planet in the process. Rebuilding our crumbling roads and schools and bridges...." "....so we can have a new electricity grid and bring renewable energy to population centers here in Indiana and across America. Build an American infrastructure for the 21st century." - Barack Obama, 2008

"....that tired, worn-out old theory that says, that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity will trickle-down on everybody else. The last thing... the last thing we can afford is four more years where no one in Washington is watching anyone on Wall Street because politicians and lobbyists killed common-sense regulations. Those are the theories that got us into this mess. They haven't worked and it is time for change, and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America." - Barack Obama, 2008

"...bailout Wall Street banks. As President I will insure the financial rescue plan helps stop foreclosures and protects your money, instead of enriching CEOs. And I'll put in place the common-sense regulations that I've been calling for throughout this campaign. So that Wall Street can never cause a crisis like this again. That's the change we need." - Barack Obama, 2008

"It is absolutely true that NAFTA was a mistake." - Barack Obama, 2008

"It's been a long time coming. But tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America." - Barack Obama, November 4, 2008

All above quotes were excerpted from Barack Obama campaign speeches and interviews as shown in the documentary"Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy"


***************************************************************************************************

At a news conference Monday in Chile, President Barack Obama stated about his order to fire 110 Tomahawk missiles into Libya: "this was not an attempt at regime change, but a humanitarian effort to save civilian and rebel lives from Gaddafi’s threat to annihilate anyone who threatened his rule." March 21, 2011

"You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package… And I believe one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market, so that we can force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest." ~President Barack Obama

“We do not expect harmful levels of radiation to reach the United States, whether it’s the West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories in the Pacific. That is the judgment of our Nuclear Regulatory Commission and many other experts.”President Barack Obama

Referring to the Bush Administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans: "We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk ... Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." ~ Presidential Candidate & U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2008

"The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Barack Obama, December 2007

"I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country." - link

"What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue (medical cannabis), simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism." ~Barack Obama, 2008

[Exilednight]

72. But, but ....but ..... I was told he didn't campaign as a progressive. Those are very progressive

stances. You must of projected those quotes upon him, he didn't actually say any of those things.

:sarcasm:

[treestar]

11. Amen!

It is very odd to me to see professed liberals blaming the President and leaving the Republicans alone.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I do not see what you claim to see in the words here.

You know who leaves the Republicans out of the blame game? The President, that's who. He is the ONLY person I have ever heard praise Coburn, for example, other than Republicans. Coburn is his friend, an honest man, a good legislator. I say Coburn is a vicious bigot, a homophobic racist and that Coburn is my enemy. Do you say Coburn is your friend and a great American as the President does? Or do you, in actuality, agree with me, that Coburn is like all Republicans, greedy, self interested, atavistic and in need of replacement?
Who do you really agree with about the likes of Tom Coburn? Is he your friend and honest ally like Obama says? Or is he a Republican bigot who should be sent packing?
It is odd to me that so many claim to be supportive of the President's message while saying the exact opposite of what the President's message says about Republicans, which is the exact same thing said by those you blast as 'critics'. Why this 'divide' is pushed so strongly, when even the most ardent 'supporters' will not stand up and support the bipartisan message of the President is not just odd, it is hypocritical and seems to be done simply to cause divisions that are not really there.
I have not once heard any 'supporter' speak in bipartisan terms about the GOP as the President does. That is extremely revealing.

[Cosmocat]

57. +1,000

He is not perfect, and I have been disappointed at times.

He HAS been a good president, and sorry, the ONE thing the republicans are right about is NOT their hatred of him.

[NorthCarolina]

6. How far to the right will you follow a Republican masquerading as a Democrat?

That is the grand experiment.

[DCBob]

7. What you may see as changing positions is simply understanding the complexities of governing..

this nation especially considering the dire situation we are in now.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Sorry, that does not fly. We have all of us been in a position

where we had to compromise or find alternatives to our first choice, and we all know that in such cases it is never, ever required that we declare the compromise to be our new position, we can say it is the one we are stuck with, and we can even say 'we are doing it this way against my instincts, to please the Republicans who are forcing our hand'.
The complexities of governing did not just drop out of the sky in 09. It has always been complex. And not just governing a nation. It is the same when governing a business, a household, a club, a Union, running any meeting or board or being in a meeting or on a board. The agreement to a compromise does not require the celebration of the compromise, nor the adoption of that compromise as one's personal position.
This argument of yours is just empty. Any and all former heads of State have all dealt with the 'complexities of governing'-complexities they claim to be able to deal with- and few have chosen to allow themselves to be defined by the difficulties. Many excellent people see difficulties as a chance to show their skill, not to take up the positions of the other side as if they were their own.
You could offer examples from history to support your theory that all Presidents wind up being the opposite of what they ran on due to 'complexities' they were unaware of when running.
Without your examples, the one that springs to mind is the GW Bush line 'governing is hard work. It's hard, hard work'. Did not impress me from him, either.

[DCBob]

17. It flies fine because its reality.

Many like you simply do not see the bigger picture. You tend to focus on the minutae and miss the giants. Winnning a single battle now does not win the war and could actually set us back in long term. Of course the President has not been completely correct in every decision he has made.. but I trust the guy and I trust him more than anyone else, Repub or Dem. I believe he has handled this monumental mess handed to him better than anyone else could have done.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. See, Bob, when you do that 'many like you' routine, you fail.

This is not about me, and if you need to make it about me, then you do not have a point to make at all. You do not know me Bob. You did not bother to counter any point I made, such as the fact that we all compromise in life and most of us retain our own voices even when doing so. Instead of speak about what I said, you speak about me.
Let me point out the key words in your statement of support: 'trust' 'I believe'. There you have it. Why not just say that your opinion is faith based, about belief not fact, about trust not actions? Seems better than taking up a lecture to me, about me, as if I was going to be schooled by some stranger on a board speaking of 'trusting the President' and 'believing'. The President 'believes' that all straight couples are 'Sanctified by God' and no gay people can be, so 'beliefs' you hold are not convincing just because you hold them.
This does not fly either. As far as 'reality' goes, how does the talk of God and angels and Sacraments fit in with this 'realism'? All over the board, and not flying an inch.

[DCBob]

28. Its not about "you".. its about the group of people who fail to see the big picture..

if you fit in that group, which I think you do, then so be it.

BTW, trusting and believing in a politician is whats its all about in politics. You can never know for sure how a leader will react in every situation and you will never know for sure if a particular decision was right or wrong because none of has all the facts. We trust that person's judgment in those cases. Which is probably the main reason I voted for this guy. I trust his judgment. I wish more did... especially in our own party.

[ClassWarrior]

30. No, it's about Obama, no matter how much you try to deflect that.

NGU.

[Armstead]

63. It is BECAUSE of the big picture that we don't buy that stuff

Too many of Obama's positions and his actions have been counterproductive to the "big picture" if one really sees the big picture as halting the nation's continual slide into a paradise for unregulated, pirate capitalism. In the big picture the battle is against excessive corporate power and the obscene concentration of wealth that has been occurring for the last 40 years.

Going against policies like regulating clean air standards based on science is a step in the WRONG direction.

Too many of those steps in the wrong direction have been made over the last four decades by Centrist Democrats, who too often act against the interests of the majority of people -- or at least enables republicans to stomp on them without no challenge -- in the Big Picture.

[DCBob]

70. the "big picture" is survival of this nation.

In my mind there are two major issues that trump all others: the continuing economic crisis and the worsening political divide. All of the President's decisions since he took office have been impacted by these two issues more than anything else because either one of those issues if not resolved can destroy this nation.

[Armstead]

76. That's the same Big Picture problem I noted

Why do you think there is a continuing economic crisis? because a small sliver of individuals and immense clorporate entities have had their way for 35 years due to a decimation of public ac accountability for their actions -- and the steady erosion by BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS -- of the mechanisms that used to restrain and limit the tendency of wealth and power to congeal into a few hands.

Why do you think there is such a political divide? Both because of clever propaganda and manipulation of public attitudes and values by the Corp

AND this happened because the "centrist" Democrats failed to provide an equally effective counter message over the last 30 years. Instead of challenging corporate lies, too often Democrats have echoed them.

The ONLY way to fix the economy -- and begin to restore a constructive political system -- within the political context is for the Democrats to actually STAND FOR policies that will restore an actual balance.

And, despite what Democrats like Obama claim -- the choice is not between far right wing and center-right. It requires a political institution (Democratic party) that actually represents, sells and fights for liberal policies and progressive populist values.

Otherwise, we're just going through a charade, and things will continue to slide towards an unchallengeable Corporate Oligarchy instead of a representative democracy..

[ClassWarrior]

19. I trust him more than anyone else running too. But I want my allies to do better. Don't you?

I too believe he has handled this monumental mess handed to him better than any other candidate could have done.

I trust my friends more than anyone else, too, but when I see them mess up, I speak up.

NGU.

[DCBob]

29. Sure, agreed.

but there is a difference between speaking up when we think he's made a mistake and bashing. Which is what I would characterize much of the criticsm from many here on DU and from other hard left liberal/progressives. It isnt helpful and isnt working. If just helps the opposition and gains us nothing towards making this nation and the world a better place to live.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Ahh, the "some criticism is more equal than others" argument. So why is even rational criticism...

...ridiculed and demeaned - nearly instantly?

And do you think that's a winning strategy for the President? To ridicule and demean Obama supporters who voice doubts? Do you think that'll get 'em out to knock on doors for him?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

46. Then why don't you engage with the critics and ignore the bashers? Nothing makes a comment...

...disappear more quickly than a dearth of attention.

:shrug:

NGU.

[DCBob]

71. I think the President has engaged the critics.. on both sides.

but at some point decisions have to be made. There is no time for endless debate.

[Armstead]

62. Why do you think the nation is in a dire situation? Because of...

Perpetual rationalizations, backpedaling, pandering to conservatives and corporate interests, lack of fortitude, etc. by too many politicians in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

The GOP and their corporate owners would never have gotten away with half the stuff they have pulled if the Democrats had actually been GOVERNING in the interests of the people, instead of constantly coming up with reasons not to govern.

[Mr Deltoid]

78. So the 'complexities of governing' call for right wing positions on everything?

Surely you jest?

[high density]

9. We also support the deficit-producing, zero-jobs-created-in-a-decade Bush tax cuts for the wealthy

I thought somebody in the campaign said Obama would get rid of those. Must've been some uninformed spokesperson or something.

[treestar]

10. Wrong.

this is the unrealistic nature of the Obama Obsessed.

You will never agree 100% with anyone but yourself. We all support politicians we don't agree with completely. We look at the realistic options and decide what is best.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Do you think the President would be proud of you talking that way in his name?

NGU.

[CreekDog]

15. no, you're wrong, my expectation isn't 100%

read the OP next time.

[RetroLounge]

67. Obama Obsessed?

This forum is GD: P, as in PRESIDENCY.

So you accuse someone who posts in the PRESIDENCY forum of being obsessed with the PRESIDENT?

:rofl:

Me thinks your projecting just a bit

:puke:

RL

[TwilightGardener]

20. He isn't President in a vacuum world of peace, abundant clean energy, and endless prosperity--

He's in the real world, facing terrible and stubborn problems and enemies both foreign and domestic (Republicans), making very tough choices, tradeoffs, and yes--compromises. Is he sometimes going against progressive wishes and ideals? Yep--for example, it's progressive to never, ever cut or change entitlements, and it's going to happen. There's a lot of agreement on both sides of the aisle that it needs to happen, and he believes that. I don't agree with everything he does, but I recognize where many of decisions come from. It's fine to be a voter and a progressive and expect him to uphold your standards--there is nothing wrong with that. But every decision and idea has to be put through the wringer of what can actually be accomplished in this day and age, with these political foes at his throat.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. President of the real world? Really? Then why does he answer

major civil rights questions with blather about religion, invisible beings, Sacraments, and a notion that some sorts of people lack a 'Sanctity' God gives to others? All a bunch of belief without reason, without reality. The 'faith based Pragmatist' schtick is wearing thin due to the contradictory nature of the two philosophies. But understand, no one who tells me they oppose my civil equality because of invisible creatures and made up 'beliefs' gets to turn on a dime and start claiming to be 'reality based'. Not without having that pointed out.

[TwilightGardener]

26. I am sorry he has disappointed in this regard. Maybe he will someday see the light on this,

or gather the political courage to publicly change his views (because I suspect political reasons rather than religious). That's all I can say.

[Mr Deltoid]

79. No legislation is better than damaging legislation

[QC]

21. It always makes me think of a fantastic precision drill squad

when I see the president's more zealous fans performing such intricate maneuvers to keep their positions precisely calibrated at every moment to his.

[TwilightGardener]

24. If you believe he's a good person who is trying his best on behalf of

all Americans, and you have realistic expectations, then it's not a matter "calibrating" or maneuvering. It's a matter of understanding why he does what he does. When he does something I don't agree with, I don't think "OMG, HE IZ A REPUBLICAN PLANT HE WANTS TO DESTROY OUR SAFETY NET HE HATES THE LEFT HE OBEYS HIS WALL STREET MASTERS HE HATES CLEAN AIR HE HATES GAY PEOPLE HE HATES IMMIGRANTS HE HATES TEACHERS HE IZ WEAK HE HAZ NO BALLZ HE JUST WANTED TO BE THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT HE IZ JUST WAITING FOR POST-PRESIDENCY TO MAKE MONEY ON SPEECHES". I try to understand what led to this decision. It's not hard to support the guy when you operate from a standpoint of trust and goodwill.

[ClassWarrior]

35. What an impressive straw man you've built there. NOBODY thinks that.

The trolls would like you to think that your allies on the left think like that, in order to divide us, but any reasonable person can see your characterization for the ham-handed cartoon it is.

NGU.

[TwilightGardener]

37. I read this stuff everyday, I have been here for years. No straw man--look

at what gets recc'd. I reply to this stuff constantly. I've alerted on it--the most egregious, anyway.

[ClassWarrior]

39. You've never seen anyone say all that. You've seen lots of individual comments, balled 'em all up...

...into one enormous ball of slime and smeared anyone who questions Obama with it.

That's a lot different than "reading this stuff everyday." I do too. And that doesn't compel me to viciously broad-brush my potential allies.

NGU.

[TwilightGardener]

40. Yep, it's called "making a point" and being illustrative.

And I don't apologize for it.

[ClassWarrior]

41. It's called dishonest and divisive, and counterproductive to the President.

NGU.

[TwilightGardener]

42. There is absolutely nothing "dishonest" about collecting all of the charges against Obama

that I read every day on DU and mentioning them in a post. In fact, it's brutally honest. I guess it's shocking to read them all in one place, isn't it? But it's reality--that's what goes on here. My point in that post was to say that I don't jump to such negative knee-jerk conclusions, because I generally give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I am sorry you don't approve of my writing style, but I won't change it.

[ClassWarrior]

43. Don't change it. I'm sure the President would be proud you talk like that in his name.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Starry Messenger]

23. It's not really supporting Obama, it is supporting power.

I think most of the conflicts here come from drastically polar-opposite political orientations. One set believes that the concentration of power in the office is all we need for good intentions to come to fruition, even if steps are being taken to do the opposite. It's an idealist position. The other side knows that most change comes from the bottom-up grassroots efforts and were hoping for the cover of a sympathetic administration to help their efforts. That has some historical precedent, but is not what is happening now, unless you see corporations as grassroots. It's actually the more practical stance, though still a bit idealistic. The bottom-up efforts are being actively thwarted in many cases, or having their aims massively watered down.

All of the contradictions inherent in our system are being brought out in full relief. Should be an interesting year, anyway.

[JoePhilly]

25. Supporting Obama is not the same as agreeing with him all the time.

And you are conflating the two.

And here is a simple example.

As a candidate, Obama ran on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. Did you agree with that?

Did you agree with everything he said as a candidate?

Did you lie when you made calls before?

Or did you focus on (1) stressing those areas where you agreed completely with him, and (2) point out how bad the GOP candidate would be on some of the areas where you would prefer Obama be more progressive?

Or did you agree with him 100% back then?

There is a difference between supporting Obama as a candidate, and agreeing with each and every position he takes, or every compromise he makes.

[CreekDog]

34. i didn't state that i expected to agree all the time

but there are so many current issues that I can't support that it's going to be impossible to be an effective supporter when most of his current initiatives I actually oppose.

it's not like i can go and campaign and when someone asks about Social Security, I'll say, "well let's talk about something else", then they ask me about offshore oil drilling (same problem), or the deficit commission (damn), or the air quality standards (shoot, not again), healthcare (Medicaid cuts -wtf, i thought we had something here)...

that's the problem.

100%? Of course not. But 20% of the major current issues? Yikes. That's going to make me a lousy advocate.

[JoePhilly]

55. What did Obama do to change Social Security?

Nothing. He's done nothing to Social Security. And, he has not actually proposed ANY CUTS to it either. None. Now, the GOP has made actual proposals to end both Social Security and Medicare. They have proposed specific legislation to do so. The GOP House actually PASSED said legislation. And every current GOP candidate has in one way or another said they would SIGN that legislation as President. Obama has endorsed NO Legislation which does anything remotely similar.

On Oil ... As a candidate in 2008, Obama's position was always, and remains, an ALL energy sources position, not a NO OIL, or even a NO DRILLING position. What did you say back then? I'm guessing you'd say that Obama understands that we still need to relie on oil and coal, but that we can not stop there and we must transition to other sources. And then you move on to his green initiative, of which there are plenty to talk about.

As for the deficit commission, what "issue" do you expect the average person to bring up? Wanna bet me they will say that the defict is too high? He can't pretend that's not true.

Healthcare is easy. If the person has a kid in college, or any long term illness, you have very positive topics to discuss. But let's say they are pissed about the PO. Obama wanted a bill with the PO, but a every member of the GOP, and unfortunately a hand full of conservative Dems, would simply not vote for a bill that included that. Now, if the person you are speaking to is well versed and wants to debate that ... says "bully pulpit" or "leadership", the thing to point out is this ... we needed every DEM and Independent Joe Lieberman. Joe is called the "Senator from Aetna" for a reason. He was never going to vote for it, and we need him and those others to get the 60 votes needed. But even if you got all the other conservadems, you need lieberman, and nothing would have passed without his vote. And there is no LEVERAGE to move him to yes. Why? (1) Lieberman is not running again (so appealing to his constituents fails), and (2) Lieberman campaigned AGAINST OBAMA in the general election. There simply was no path to get this vote, even if you had those other conservadems in line (which we did not). If your target person wants the PO, then encourage them to add more Dems to the Congress. IF we can add more Dems, we can expand the original legislation to include a PO.

If foreign policy comes up ... let's see ... OBL is DEAD, Iraq is winding down on the schedule Obama ran on, and the status of the US is far stronger than it was when he took office.

Do you have a 401k? Ahhh ... so then you've probably noticed that the DOW has gone from ~7500 when Obama took office back up to above 11,000. Not bad for a guy the GOP claims is terrible for business.

On the economy ... the three charts everyone needs to see ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x756825

Obama saved the US auto industry ... and the GOP wanted to let it die. There's an easy one.

DADT?

Tax cuts ... while here on DU, the Bush tax cut issue is an "OBAMA BAD" topic ... in reality, for the American people this is more complex. See Obama made two promises ... (1) to NOT raise taxes on those making under 250k, and (2) to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The GOP used their ability to filibuster (again with help from the conservadems in both houses) to make sure that a stand-alone bill to extend only the tax cuts for those under 250k would not pass. And so, at the end of 2010, Obama had to pick which of these promises to break. He could let them all expire thus breaking the 1st and keep the 2nd, or do the reverse. He could not keep both, at least not at that time. The choice he made allowed those making under 205k to keep their tax cut which put money in the pocket of some of the people hit hard by the recession, along with an unemployment insurance extension for those who were hit even harder. if he went the other way, he breaks promise #1 and keeps #2. Which means that sure, the rich get a 3% tax increase (that they will yawn at), but those making under 250k get hurt AGAIN. Bottom line, the GOP held the middle class and the unemployed hostage. Have this discussion with some one outside DU, and you will get a positive response, because they are the hostages that would have been SHOT.

And lastly ... on almost every topic ... one can simply compare Obama's position to that of the alternatives. There are plenty of places where I don't agree with him 100%. But compared to the GOP on the same topic, I agree with them usually at about 0%.

Also ... in your description of these you seem to be heading out into "liberal country". I'd skip that. For all the gnashing of teeth, the liberals are not staying home. The people who will stay home are the "left leaning" because all they hear from the liberals is "Obama is terrible". And the far right hates Obama because he is a socialist commie Kenyan Muslim, so I'd skip them too.

[CreekDog]

65. i can't oppose a position he's taken or said is acceptable?

i have to wait for him to issue an executive order, sign legislation, make appointments, etc.

in other words, you're saying i have to wait until he's done something and it's already happened to oppose it.

i can't simply try to stop it.

what a crazy world you inhabit.

[JoePhilly]

66. Incredibly weak response.

I am actual sorry I took the time to respond in depth to you.

Can you name a piece of proposed legislation that Obama supports that cuts Social Security?

No, you can't. It has never happened.

You need not WAIT for anything.

And then you ignore every other issue I discuss .... wow.

Look, I get it ... you will not go door to door. Just say THAT and be done with it. No need to write OPs about how hard it would be. Just don't do it. Who cares if you DON'T do it.

But I doubt you planned to anyway .... in your response here, you DROP the door to door discussion, and say that I suggest you have to agree in total with all things Obama.

Which I did not suggest.

And you call me crazy.

I doubt you went door to door before (unless that was in a very liberal area) and I don't think you should go door to door in 2012. Unless its for a tea Party candidate.

I can't be much clearer than that.

Stay home. Help get out the vote. On not. Vote. Don't vote.

This is America, and those are your choices ... at least as they exist in this "crazy land I inhabit".

[Mr Deltoid]

80. Obama: We Offered Cuts to “Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security”

Remember the debt ceiling?

[LiberalFighter]

27. Sorry! But I didn't support Obama on all of his positions at any time.

I didn't support any candidate or elected official all of the time. I never have and probably never will.

I will support the candidate or elected official that I think is best for the office.

[dgibby]

31. Excellent OP.

Thank you.

[alsame]

33. k&r. My political ideology is what it is, it doesn't change when a

Democratic President/Senator/Rep takes a right wing position.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Pro-Clinton folks must all support DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, media deregulation, Glass-Steagall repeal...

... extraordinary rendition aka. torture (which Bill Clinton invented to Dick Cheney's later delight), mountaintop removal (a practice which he continued unlike Pres. Obama), his passing up chances to kill OBL, welfare "reform" (a GOP wet dream come true), the DLC, cutting Medicare and SS (in a backroom deal with Newt Gingrich that thankfully never came to be), his being Poppy and Barbara Bush's adopted son, etc. using your logic.

All those years - and even now - Democrats stuck by Bubba. It must be because they supported his having adulterous blowjobs with women younger than his daughter and lying about it to all Americans on national TV as well as supported all of his DINO legislative moves.

It's all clear to me now.

[TwilightGardener]

38. It blows the mind, doesn't it. Bill Clinton did many things I didn't think panned out, and yet

I think overall he was a good President and he had my support. Obama will never get that sort of goodwill, apparently--and he is in a MUCH tougher world than Clinton ever faced.

[zalinda]

50. Clinton had the good fortune

of the Internet bubble. Every one was making and spending money, so even if you didn't agree with everything the President said, you game him a pass.

Security is the very first item on every person's list, and with Clinton, it was still there. This is another time, and Obama campaigned for the job, therefore, he wanted to be put in this position. People are not secure, and since they cannot blame it on some invisible power, Obama gets the blame.

Where Clinton seemed like he cared and was warm, Obama seems to be cold and aloof. Clinton spoke in common plain English, while Obama speaks as if he is addressing a college class. One of the things that repubs have really learned is to speak plainly, otherwise their potential voters eyes will glaze over.

zalinda

[TwilightGardener]

51. I like Obama's delivery and style. I haven't heard whatever you're alluding to, "addressing

a college class". I think he's pretty good at fitting his words to the occasion and audience.

[great white snark]

45. Don't forget Kosovo. All Clinton supporters must be pro-war.

If you go by the assertion of this OP that is.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Your OP is not true....one doesn't have to support every position he takes,

in order to be a supporter.

However, if I want to rag about every single thing the
president as done that I don't like,
and give his opponents a hand up, I'd join FR.
That's what THEY do over there.....and I'd like to think that
I have nothing in common with those creeps and that I'm smarter than a 5th grader.

Actions and words, even at DU, have their consequences, when repeated over and over again,
day after day......even if some try to act like DU doesn't influence anything....cause I don't believe that this is true, because if it were, folks wouldn't bother to post their negativity,
day after day about everything and anything.

I refuse to help the enemy even one little bit, cause they already get all the help
that they will ever need.

I'll be damned if I have to wake up on November 7th,
only to realize that the results that we end up with didn't have to be this way.
I don't want to give away the Supreme Court to the Right, so that rights are diminished
some more for the next 20 years. I don't want to turn workers into peons, and drown the
government in the bathtub. I don't want to see them abolish the minimum wage,
trash medicare, privatize social security, ban unions, and regress on equal rights.

So based on what I don't want to happen to my and the future of those that I love,
I will continue to support Barack Obama, and I won't air my dirty laundry,
especially at a site that should be supportive instead of stabbing him
in the back, while trying to rationalize why I shouldn't care about the future....just the
right now and the emotional satisfaction of being able to whine just cause I can.

[ClassWarrior]

47. So it's "supportive" to call his allies "whiners?" To call legitimate concern "ragging?"

Do you think the President would be proud of how you're talking in his name?

NGU.

[frazzled]

48. Opposing him does, too

Just sayin'. I see just as much flip flopping on the opposition side. Especially with regard to seizing unitary executive power, which we fought vigorously during the Bush administration. But now many here want to see Obama continue or even expand such powers, overriding Congress. I could think of many other examples.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Questioning him doesn't.

Yet the people who simply question him based on their steadfast Democratic values are the ones who take the brunt of the abuse from both sides.

:shrug:

NGU.

[boppers]

52. Does "strawman" have a plural that adequately expresses a flock, a herd, etc?

Is a collection of them a firelake?

[Pisces]

54. You can support the President and disagree with some policy choices.

These ops are stupid. As if any Pres. could please everyone all of the time.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Yet, in the case of some posters, it appears that he does please them all of the time.

Perhaps they're not what they seem? Hmmm...

NGU.

[vaberella]

60. Actually majority of the time Obama does well.

I hated the Libya thing---I still hate the Libya thing---I still didn't want him to be in it and I hated that we went in. I knew the facts behind it and I even defended it---but I stated at the same time I hated it. However, for many people here and for the public it was a success. To me it was stepping stone to disaster and I still see problems ahead. However, none the less it was a winner.

I think you have to get a clue as to how we "as supporters" work and speak to us not at us or making assumptions as to how we think. It's fuckin' irritating and paints you as a jerk rather than someone who wants healthy discussion. The assumptions you make are untrue, frustrating and YOU are acting like one of the people who others have said are trolls---creating this "supporter" versus "non-supporter" aspect on a Democratic board---where people are supposed to SUPPORT the Democrats.

[ClassWarrior]

64. Do you think the President would be proud of you talking that way to a fellow supporter in his name?

NGU.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

58. That's false. It's about the explanations given for each situation.

And it's the various explanations and protests----I'm not even looking so much on the "corporate" or business side of it. The black and white way we understand the topic and then the reality of it are normally two different things. I hated the off-shore drilling. But when I was reading up on the protests by citizens in Louisiana who depend on working in the oil rigs and for oil companies who were later faced with a moratorium. You have to see there's a flipside and what's good for the goose is not good for the gander and there are more than one or two people affected. This then leads you to shift in your rather stringent way of looking at a situation.

[Fearless]

59. That's Romney level flip-floping!! Kill me.

[Hawkowl]

61. 9% unemployment is going to be the "good ole day"

There is NOTHING on the horizon that is going to make this economy better by November 2012! Even if Obama managed to change direction and get a huge jobs program passed, and protection from offshoring jobs, and making corporations pay their fair share, the economy wouldn't even show these affects till next year.

The only thing Obama can do is change his tune. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK! If he wants to be president he's going to have to crucify Republicans on their deliberate destruction of the economy and their blocking all attempts at recovery for political gain.

I don't think he has it in him. So, he will lose. And so will we.

[quaker bill]

69. I don't need to change

As I have never fully agreed with any politician, and am not about to start. However I always vote for the one I think will do the least harm.

[Phx_Dem]

74. The dilema of firebaggers to to constantly deny reality.

[jefferson_dem]

81. Easy solution to "dilemma": Support him when he's right. Do not support him when he's not.

That's what I do. :)