myTPM | Jaligard's Blog

Obama is Losing Me

September 4, 2009, 1:04PM

So, I haven't been the biggest supporter in the world. I never went to a rally; I didn't make any phone calls. I did give money. Not a lot of money--I couldn't afford to give a lot--but I gave what I could. But I am a supporter and I am a *loyal* supporter.
My football team hasn't won anything since 1999. I stuck with Apple Computer before they had the iPod and the iMac. Loyalty is what I do. Once you've convinced me, I am pretty much yours.
So I have been onboard the Obama train for many months now. I bought his book and I've been cheering him on for a while.
And now, at this moment, I am about to wash my hands of him.
For the eight years, I've been living with a government that had nothing but contempt for me. I didn't like it--tried to stop it--but I lived with it. What hurt the most is that whenever the previous administration got caught breaking the law or violating the public trust so badly that it's not even covered in the law, Democrats in Congress would stand by and do nothing. Maybe some token resistance, but they barely even tried. Even when they won the House in 2006, they let it continue.
Lying us into war, torturing our prisoners--even those who had not wronged us, politicizing not just the Justice Department but the entire federal government, spying on U.S. citizens: all of these things were either condoned, ignored, or--at best--mildly scoffed at by our elected Democrats.
Fine.
Now we have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President--one for which I had very high hopes. They're going to let the previous administration slide on everything...of course. But they're going after health care reform--something I wanted them to do--something the country has needed for a long, long time.
But the way they've gone about it...I don't know that I can support them. I don't know that I'm going to be an Obama man any more.
They're giving away all the good parts. They're negotiating with Republicans that simply want to shut down reform. At this point, we're gong to end up with a mandate to buy crappy insurance--we're going to ignore the problem by throwing billions of dollars at the biggest trouble-makers.
And the Public Option is right there. It makes Health Care reform make a lot more sense. It provides an actual check against the insurance industry. Otherwise, they will escape via one loophole or another and we'll be stuck in our same predicament--except there won't be any onus to fix things any more.
The thing about Obama is that I have not seen him fight for the Public Option. I've heard him explain why we need reform; he definitely gets it. But if he's not going to fight for it...how can I ever fight for him?
I don't have the energy for it.
I'll root for a losing team that gives everything. But it's hard to root for the team that refuses to fight.
So, for me, Obama has this speech to prove himself. I hate to say it, but if he doesn't come out swinging, I'm through with him.

A Simple Solution to a Difficult Problem

January 15, 2009, 3:02PM

As I watched the Holder nomination process, I saw a Republican Senator (Specter?) question him about prisoners in Guantanimo Bay. Both he and Holder danced around the need to hold these prisoners indefinitely while at the same time staying true to the American principles of due process.

I didn't watch the whole dance, but they have a point: it's a difficult problem. Here we have a large number of people that fought against us, conspired against us and will likely conspire against us in the future. They are not likely to be accepted by many countries, so they cannot be returned to their place of origins. For the most part, they cannot be convicted in a justice system that will not allow coerced evidence, requires a speedy trial, a jury of peers and errs on the side of innocence over guilt.

It is, indeed, a difficult problem.

But I think the Senator provided the answer in one of his first questions (paraphrased): Do you we believe we are at war?

If we are at war--and every one likes to remind us that we are--there is a convention for holding enemies that would fight against you. You make them prisoners of war.

We could abide by the Geneva Conventions (regardless of whether our enemies do) and still keep these captives from doing us harm. I think the only drawback is that we would be elevating Al Qaida to a nation-like status, which we've kind of already done.

Is there something I'm missing? Some reason we cannot do this?

The Sky is Blue

September 10, 2008, 2:12PM

John McCain has come so far away from "Straight Talk" that if someone asked him the color of the sky, he'd have to check with George Bush and Karl Rove.

Serious People Meme—half-developed thought

August 4, 2008, 6:02PM

I'd like to see the Obama camp push out a Serious People ad.
It seems like an appropriate response to the "Celebrity" attacks.
We've got plenty of material: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran." Bush and McCain with a birthday cake as Katrina engulfs New orleans. Ads with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. "I'm proud of that ad."
"We deserve a president that is ready to tackle serious issues." Cut to McCain stumbling over an issue question. Once again, plenty of material to go with.

The Proper Response to Republican Meme: When has Barack Taken on His Own Party?

June 30, 2008, 3:44PM

This new attack line has been appearing again and again from McCain supporters. I have seen it twice myself—and I don't watch the TV—including this weekend on ABC This Week when Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) asked Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL):

"When has Barack Obama stood up and taken on his party on anything of national significance?"

Emanuel stumbled over an answer before regaining his composure, but essentially fed the meme: Obama is a partisan politician while McCain is an independent maverick. It's an idea the media is far too likely to support and could give McCain some traction.

To take the question at face value overlooks the obvious: since Obama has been a senator, the Republicans have been wrong on just about every issue. The question should be thrown back in their faces.

"It's difficult to side with the Republicans when they have been wrong on issue after issue:

•Should Obama has stood with Bush and McCain when they tried to dismantle Social Security?

•Should Obama have stood with Bush and McCain when they legalized water-boarding and other forms of torture?

•Should Obama have stood with Bush and McCain when they refused to give our troops the body armor and equipment they deserved?

•Should Obama have stood with Bush and McCain when they sided with the oil companies instead of the American people?"

The list could go on-and-on and can be customized for any demographic you're reaching out to. You can use it to talk about children's health care, the mortgage crisis or any number of issues that Republicans have been wrong about in the past four years.

It's a counter-attack opportunity. We need to take advantage of the opening.

Counter-attacks

February 5, 2006, 12:26AM

The President is weak right now. He's weak, his policies seem to be going nowhere. He's lost ground politically in the Iraq = War on Terror bit. His handling of the War on Terrorism has, for some reason, always been seen as a strength.

Rove wants to return to that. I wants to remind people why they like him. Bush talked tough in the days after 9/11. Rove wants to remind people that Bush is tough and will do what it takes and he wants to paint Democrats as whiny, cry-baby New Age parents.

The Democratic response, calling for his resignation, gives other Republicans a chance to reinforce that message.

Democrats need to learn to counter-attack.

In fencing, the art of the counter-attack is to a) make sure the attack does not hit you and b) make sure your non-prioirity attack strikes true. You accomplish both with timing, distance displacement. It's all about using momentum against your attacker. The beauty of the counter-attack is that you can destroy the morale of an aggressive fencer. If they cannot hit you, their only tool is gone.

Bush cannot win this debate by making himself look good alone. He cannot convince people that things are going well in Iraq. He has to make someone look bad. He has to make people think, "Well, at least the Democrats aren't in charge."

Attack.

The correct response is to counter-attack.

There is no point in attacking Carl Rove. Carl Rove is Bush's political adviser and that will not change. The guy is lost without Rove. And even if the populace feels disdain for Rove, it does not necessarily smear the President. When Rove attacks, it should be assumed to be for a reason. Do not fall for it. Counter-attack, and remember there are no points given for smearing Rove. But you can smear the President for his association with Rove.

My response--admittedly in retrospect--is similar to Joshua's second post on the subject:

It explains a lot about President Bush when you look at his advisers. Bush's job right now is relatively simple. In war, the President must focus and win the war. We know he "thinks about Iraq *every day*" and we know his job is "hard work".

But his advisers are worried about Democrats. It isn't difficult to see why we're having a difficult time in Iraq when Bush's advisers keep focusing on us. We're on the President's team. The President should put aside these cheap political games and focus on our troops. We know it's "hard work" but it's his job right now. It's not a game for our soldiers in Iraq and it's not a game for us.

We have no time for this cheap charade because we are at war. It's time the President and his advisers started acting like it.

Recent Archives

Click here to view the full archive