Self-deleted by member

[Newsjock]

This message was self-deleted and locked by Newsjock.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. He's a bit too kind about it

nt

[villager]

2. "he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."

Yup.

[JoePhilly]

5. One of my favorite Tea party memes.

[villager]

6. So you're saying it isn't true? Or that the NY Times writer is a Tea-partier?

Your drive-by comment isn't clear...

[EFerrari]

9. Oh, it's clear. If you attach "tea party meme" to an idea

no one is supposed to think about it any more.

Disgusting.

[villager]

10. Right. It's actually one of the great apologist memes, used, as ever, in lieu of conversation

n/t

[bananas]

19. Comic 68 - Hearing deficit

http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/comics/pl/123434

[JoePhilly]

12. I think my comment was very clear.

The use of the "present" vote is very well known to anyone who understands politics.

And the use of the "Obama voted 'present' X times" meme is a standard right wing attack used to disparage Obama with people who have no real knowledge of how the "present" vote is used in US politics.

Its kind of like how the right wing suddenly cares about raising the debt ceiling now, while pretending they don't know that its been raised as a matter of standard business more than 71 times.

The right wing PRETENDS that Obama is the first to ever try to raise the debt ceiling, and they pretend that he's the only politician to have ever voted "present".

There, this time as I did my drive by, I slowed down for you, before shooting giant holes in your silly right wing meme.

Bury it, its dead. I killed it.

[villager]

22. You shot holes in nothing -- just blustered your way to a non-argument

Actual questions, in an actual conversation, would be:

*What were the number of "present" votes for other Senators in the same timeframe?

*What issues, in particular, did Obama vote "present" on, instead of taking a stand?

For example, the NY Times said this, a few years back:

"The New York Times (Dec. 20, 2007): Sometimes the "present" votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive."


So, sure, it wasn't always to duck an issue, but then again, ducking issues, or suddenly coming out on the opposite side of where he said he was, seems, alas, to be an Obama trait, especially as President.

Ergo, the long line of "present" votes would seem to take on more significance in retrospect.

Rightwingers are against Obama, and always have been. But none of that excuses the times when Obama has sold out his base, or dissembled about a stand on an issue. Or caved to the corporatists.

And none of that means we shouldn't be able to discuss those disappointments, reversals, and dangerous policy diversions here.

See? An actual discussion isn't so bad after all, is it? ;-)

[Cali_Democrat]

25. +1000

[sabrina 1]

26. No, you didn't 'kill it'. What you failed to do was to answer

a question that is being asked now more and more. Considering the opposition he has received from the Right, why does he never, ever stand up to them? Why has he abandoned those who elected him and more often than not, caved, given in, compromised, to the very people who at least on the surface, pretend to disagree with him even on issues where he has handed them what they want?

Where is the FIGHT? We are talking about the future of this country, NOT about a single politician's career and four more years of caving to the worst ideas imaginable to move this country forward on a path that strengthens it, is simply not possible. So, why, once again, does this president not stand up to these people? Why does he seem to agree with many of their insane ideas?

Kucinich, eg, just made an eloquent and factual statement about the S&P downgrading of the US. Where is a similar statement from this President?? Why is afraid to be a strong leader? Or, does he agree with them?

People don't know what to think of him anymore, but they will not blindly follow someone who does not make it clear that he has the best interests of those who elected him in mind. And putting SS, Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block doesn't inspire confidence that he is on their side.

[Ruby the Liberal]

37. Have to say, it does speak volumes on taking a stand

Which his presidency has shown he is repeatedly unwilling to do.

Negotiation 101: Start with EVERYTHING on the table and work down.

Obama Negotiation 101: Take everything off the table that won't end up being passed in order to cut to the chase and make friends who some day might vote for you.

[sabrina 1]

23. Is it true or not?

Who cares about the Teaparty? What is important now are FACTS. Did he have a record of standing up for anything?? If so, what? We cannot afford another four years of this and it's time to remove the rose-colored glasses and start asking some questions so we know where we stand and what we have to do about the future of this country.

[ProSense]

3. This

"Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue."

...is nonsense!

Really? Most Americans have no idea what the President and the Democratic Party stands for on "virtually any issue"?

Utter nonsense!

[girl gone mad]

11. If it isn't clear to most Americans by now that he is a neoliberal..

working on behalf of kleptocrats, they have only themselves to blame.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Lifelong Democrat. Honestly, I really don't know anymore what Obama stands for either.

I'm from IL. Worked HARD for him because of his positions as a State Senator on healthcare (single payer progressive).

I've been in HIS trenches from the beginning and he's lost me. He looks like a Rethug now.

[sendero]

33. You are nonsense..

.. every single post, full of cheerleading BULLSHIT absolutely devoid of any relevant facts.

Obama is useless. It really is as simple as that and nothing your pitiful mind can come up with will change that, you are as neutered and irrelevant as he is.

[hulka38]

35. This

"Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue"
statement is a perfectly stated, spot on conclusion. K&R

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Maccagirl]

8. This "thing" that calls himself a Democrat?

Words fail me.

[Skittles]

13. yes, it is amazing he calls himself a Democrat

[Maccagirl]

28. Barack Obama is a "thing"

Duly noted.

[Skittles]

32. I would not call him a "thing"

but I would not call him a Democrat either

[hifiguy]

15. The record is what it is:

More wars
Spending millions to bust medical marijuana dispensaries
Doubling down on Afghanistan
Gitmo still doing booming business
Approving the assassination of American civilians
Endless surveillance, doubtless of this very message board
Drone attacks on civilians in Afghanistan
Selling out to Repukes and plutocrats time and time and time again
Corporate controlled health care "reform"
Doubling down on NCLB
No meaningful reform of the finance racket, much less actual prosecutions of criminals who brag openly about their own criminality
No prosecution of war criminals because we must "look forward"
Continued baling out of looters and exploiters

I could go on for hours. Care to refute these facts??

[RainDog]

7. sadly strikes a chord nt/

[killbotfactory]

14. Another "Obama's not good enough for you leftwingers" editorial from the NYT

Such liberals, they.

[applegrove]

16. Part of the worry about the deficit is the international worry about entitlements in the USA over

the long term. We know the gop wants to privatize them. We know the GOP will have a supermajority sometime in the next 30 years. We need to do something about entitlements now, as democrats where we can keep the system mostly as it is but jut means test it and tax the rich more for entitlements. Otherwise the GOP WILL privatize all it some day in the next 30 years.

[starroute]

31. Means testing is the surest road to privatization

If the rich know they'll never get anything back, they'll have every justification to want to keep their money and invest it themselves. Having a system where everybody pays in and everybody gets back is the *only* way to preserve it intact.

Also, I doubt means testing would save all that much. Excluding only the billionaires won't do a lot -- but excluding the couple who retire with a nest egg of a million dollars could draw down that nest egg very quickly if one of them gets seriously sick. Or else they'd end up paying $40,000 a year for some new super-version of Medigap insurance. Any which way, that would be a recipe for resentment of the poor and further attempts to slash benefits.

So please, don't even talk about mean testing. It's another trap.

[applegrove]

34. The GOP get money from big insurance. They will privatize medicare (which costs a lot more per

person than a public health insurance plan). How do we stop the GOP if we know they will have a supermajority some year before SS and Medicare go bankrupt? And don't forget that G.W.Bush wanted all that social security money in the private market. I mean they are just salivating. They can't wait. Do we just sit by and not reform SS and medicare in smart ways and let the GOP go after both programs? Cause they will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Ok now the NYT is sounding like some of us here?

There is something in the water... I smell TREND. And that could be a really bad thing.

Mr. President time to channel your inner LBJ

[ProSense]

20. "Drew Westen" is not the NYT. The

NYT editorial: Race to the Right

[targetpractice]

21. Money quote....

"When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability."

This is what drives me nuts when I listen to him talk... He always talks in passive, wishy-washy, inclusive terms, whereas Clinton and Bush would clearly name the opposition and point out the problems with their positions.

[ruggerson]

24. What he has also lost is the perception of authenticity

He was able to project it in 2008 as a candidate, and people wanted to believe in him. But it's hard to be perceived as an authentic leader when his governing style has turned out to be a complete aversion to conflict.

[Rex]

27. Nothing he is doing exactly what he wants to.

[blkmusclmachine]

29. Pod person, Body Snatchers, ???

j/k

[andym]

30. It's much more simple: he has a need to "get things done"

that's probably why he seems so inconsistent. Getting something (anything) done is his MO. In our system this requires compromise. He is willing to compromise a lot on what appears to be his ideal solutions. Trouble is that the Tea Party has a different agenda: to reduce the federal government to a 19th century size. He has no possibility of compromise with them.

[LetTimmySmoke]

36. K and R.

That article is 100% true. It says what I think a lot more eloquently and completely than I ever could.