Obama an Embarrassment on 4th of July
I think McCain is the strawman here in this response to political announcements on the 4th of July. I, for one, find it to be particularly reprehensible instead for Obama to don the cloak of the Patriots in his remarks.
The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against the tyranny of the government of King George. Nowhere did it mention health care reform (or, as is more cynically accurate, health insurance "reform"). Nowhere did it mention an energy policy. Nowhere was it presented as an outline for a business-as-usual political policy agenda.
No, the Declaration of Independence was fighting words! I would encourage all to read the Declaration of Independence within the context of what should be our proper response to the many abuses of power introduced by the Bush Administration, many of which are now sanctioned by the Obama Administration. The Declaration of Independence leaves little doubt about just how urgently Jefferson and Adams and the others would have responded to revelations about war crimes and Gitmo and CIA "Black Sites" and warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of habeus corpus rights and the murder of detainees and other such extreme human rights abuses.
McCain is a clown, and his ridiculous, denture-clattering pronouncements are to be expected.
Obama is another story. He is our President. Furthermore, he was elected in main part to restore the principles of governance spelled out so beautifully in our Declaration of Independence. He has failed miserably in this regard.
If he would now choose just a modicum of honor before political expediency, he would find the decency to at least lay low and not show his face around here during our celebration of the 4th of July. But who needs honor when there are so many lobbyists requiring servicing for a fee, eh? Obama chooses instead to continue with the very lucrative "business" of "governing" instead of defending our Constitution, and thus blasphemes our Founders in the process. We should all feel ashamed for allowing it to happen.
Man, was this an overlooked gem, or what!
You rawk SJ!
July 5, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He has failed miserably in this regard."
"If he would now choose just a modicum of honor before political expediency, he would find the decency to at least lay low and not show his face around here during our celebration of the 4th of July."
WTF? Governing is what the Executive does, numbnuts. And how is it lucrative? You think he's taking money on the side? Or just dyeing his hair gray for the hell of it? What's your point? I really have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You make as much sense as Sarah Palin. How can he better defend the Constitution in your view? And, how is he offending our white slave owning founding fathers? What the hell are you talking about?
Overlooked gem? Holy shit.
July 5, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Studs Terkel was a supporter of single-payer, public option health care. Why do you use his photo for your avatar?
July 5, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment and question, even though I'm not sure I understand your point.
My choice of avatar has recently been explained in response to another blog here at TPM. My affinity for Terkel is well-reasoned and deeply held. In my estimation, he represents the model citizen capable of accepting the responsibility of embracing government "of, by, and for the people."
I am personally unaware of Terkel ever specifically stating support for "single payer, public option health care." I would assume he supported universal, single payer health care, however, for the same reasons I do. To begin with, Terkel shared my contempt for the following aspects and players in today's political reality:
- "Pay to Play Politics"
- politicians for rent or sale (direct bribery or campaign contributions - makes no real difference)
- systemic social parasites, such as the military/industrial complex and, most relevant in this discussion, the health insurance industry.
- The "privileged class" who view such things as basic health care as a benefit to be made available only to those who can "afford it" or "earn it" rather than recognizing it as a basic human right.
If we eliminate the above problems that stand in the way of honest health care reform, we find that there is simply no possible argument that can be made against single payer, universal health care.
Of course the elimination of these obstructions would leave no one at the table from among those who are now presently debating and designing our "health care reform." And Terkel would surely have approved of such a development. He would have joined me in suggesting that the effort to truly reform our health care system would best be served by instead placing at the table people like Terkel himself, the California Nurses Association, and others whose primary concern was making affordable health care available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.
Obama has presented to us this kabuki theater drama telling us that he is engaged in the work of God and justice in his pursuit of health care reform and a comprehensive energy policy and even a bailout of Wall Street bankers for the supposed benefit of us all. It is really nothing more than politics as usual wherein the interests of the paying clientele will be served to the exclusion of everyone else as required. One difference here is that the size of the giveaway he is proposing for his campaign contributors is exceeded only by the degree to which we will suffer negative consequences of his failure to actually accomplish the stated objectives he so cynically offers.
The most inexcusable aspect of Obama's agenda, however, is the way in which he uses this charade of "doing the people's work" to excuse himself from his sworn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." As Qwerty so plainly delineates elsewhere in this thread, Obama has in fact joined forces with Bush/Cheney in institutionalizing the rape of our Constitution, completely contrary to the purpose for which so many of us chose him for the Office.
Ultimately, it was perhaps a kindness given that Studs Terkel passed away on the eve of Obama's election in November. I know that Terkel shared with me the tremendous hope that here at last we would elect a leader who could truly stand alongside Jefferson, Adams, and those other patriots who served as President in a government that derived their just powers from the consent of the governed. I am pleased that Terkel was spared the terrific disappointment that has been felt following Obama's Inauguration instead, whereupon the people have been so cynically cast aside in deference to a ruling (monied) class and the trappings of Executive Power.
And I am sure I am not alone in taking insult to Obama now appropriating the 4th of July to himself as the supposed "caretaker" of the Revolution of 1776. Were the rabble at Faneuil Hall to encounter him today, I believe they would be more inclined to kick his ass than to anoint him as their leader.
And I suspect that if Studs were there as well, he would join in the activities - first making sure to cinch tight his bootlaces.
July 6, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This about sums up my impression. I am left not knowing what the poster would have done differently and that he canonizes some extremely flawed men who saw no problem with the 3/5 clause in our founding documents. Most of the founders were not great humanitarians.
July 6, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the more reason to find so incredible the Declaration of Independence that these flawed individuals adopted as the roadmap to create this Republic.
If you believe in God, call it Providential.
For myself, it stands as a testament to the way in which even flawed individuals can arrive at great wisdom when standing together as equals in a diligent search of honest answers.
July 6, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has never been able to get the fact that his loss in the last election has rendered him virtually out of the national political situation. I often wonder if he ever ponders how many votes Palin on his ticket cost him in votes. However, some Republicans say Palin snared a lot of votes for McCain. Who knows what the facts are? However, McCain's comments still smack of the sore-loser syndrome and who really cares what he has to say. We voted NO on McCain/Palin.
July 6, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
From executive privilege, illegal wiretapping, TARP to the War on Terror, there is nothing but continuation of the abuses from the Bush era policies. There is NO TRANSPARENCY whatsoever on the critical twin issues of the Economy and the WOT, and there won't be according to statements from the WH for "various reasons", "reasons" that were once rejected by the liberals and progressives when they were offered by Bush, but since then accepted when they are offered by Obama. In fact, by pacifying the Democrats who objected to those policies under Bush, Obama has ensured that those very policies favoring the Wall St. oligarchy and the MIC can now be entrenched with "bi-partisan" support. It is the same contents in different packaging, and shame on us for being so easily deluded by promises and words, not unlike the animals in George Orwell's Animal Farm.
July 6, 2009 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, qwerty! You get it exactly!
July 6, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aye! Aye!
July 6, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the one hand, even though his policies suck on almost every issue of importance to our founding fathers, Obama *is* president and as such should address the nation on the 4th of July.
On the other ... what the hell was he thinking? He shouldn't use our national celebration to flog policy and basically perpetuate partisan legislative struggles on the day we are supposed to set all that aside and just be Americans. Why couldn't he have just been patriotic and said some nice stuff about America and let it go at that?
All and all, I must agree - not his classiest moment.
July 6, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is, indeed, impossible to draw any parallels from that to modern-day human rights issues such as healthcare or saving the ecosystem.
And you are certainly about the blistering pace of the independence progress, starting in the early 1760's, and really fomenting in early 1774. All of the atrocities that happened on Obama's watch, kindly listed by you, and not in any way responded to by really anyone, truly show the reality of the situation.
July 6, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
With the exception of Washington, every founder promptly did what was politically advantageous and expedient when it came to those supposedly sacred truths. I have yet to see anyone ever respond to that little tidbit of reality.
July 6, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
expound
July 6, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The founders would have little reason to roll over in their graves because they were of the same ideological bent as the people who rule today. John Adams may have written about torn-up he was over the Alien & Sedition Act but he still signed it and promoted its use. The founders may have used pretty words and universal truths to get the rabble aroused, but they essentially replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy. They created a system that would be almost wholly dependent on precedent and subject to the whims of a small group of elite white men. That has hardly changed in over 230 years.
What Americans have yet to do is actually use the power of the vote to enforce the rules we were originally seduced by. For more than forty years, everyone has had the right to vote with only a bare majority exercising that right and only then in the general election. Turnout for primaries has been beyond pathetic. Until we change that trend, which is even more pathetic for midterm primary elections, nothing any president does is going to matter beyond their immediate term in office.
July 6, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blaspheme the Founders? Excuse me, but they are not gods.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Founders. I really do. But, as noted by others, they were just men. Highly flawed, like all humans. Subject to human weakness and foibles and far from immune to the lure of expediency.
A lot of them were slaveowners. One of the most important of them slept with the enslaved half-sister of his dead wife and toted up his childern with her in his account books like so many pigs or mules. Many of them were anti-democratic oligarchs. Some of them were even crooks. Most of them were complicit in the extermination of the Indians.
None of them did a whole hell of a lot about the illegal expulstion of loyalists and confiscation of their property nor did they stay awake at night worrying about the rampant war crimes committed during the virtual civil war that broke out in South Carolina in the last years of the Revolution.
To the extent that you suggest he should have chosen prosecuting the Bushies for their crimes in favor of pushing healthcare reform, energy policy reform and keeping the recession from turning into Great Depression II, I respectfully disagree. However, to the extent that you suggest a full-bore prosecutorial assault on the Bush Administration's systematic malfeasance vs. prosecuting the domestic and foreign policy agenda he's pursuing is an either/or decision in terms of availible political capital, I think there's merit to your argument.
I think, in fact, that if he tried both, all he'd succeed in doing is raise a shitstorm that would bury both the prosecutions and his agenda and turn his single term into a dismal failure that would reanimate the corpse of the Republican Party and doom us to another eight years of their increasingly unbalanced rule.
Many here disagree. I get that. They think that the clensing purity power that would result from hammering the Bush criminals would double his political capital, making it possible for him to do even more in advancing their (not his, I can't help but notice) agenda. If that--minus my slightly snide spin--is what you think, then it's simply the case that we're arguing from different postulates and will never agree. The most we can hope for is to recognize the other's good intentions and be at least a little bit calm and respectful in our disagreement.
A lot of people, however, do, at some level, buy my either/or postulate, but passionately believe that smiting the Bushies is far more important than health insurance reform, energy reform, putting some brakes on the economic slide, the radical shift in our foreign policy he's begun, and the rest of his domestic agenda--especially given that they don't think he's going far enough on any of those fronts.
I understand that argument. I simply disagree with it. If Justice were to go after Yoo and Cheney and the rest of the swine, I'd be pleased. But if they do it, I think it is both politically imperative and constitutionally healthful for it to be clear that they are doing so despite the president's frequently expressed wishes.
If they don't, I'll hate it and, frankly, I'll also be surprised. But given that Bush turned the White House into Augean Stables I'll also make allowances for the fact that, like the Founders, Obama is a just man, not a god. Unlike Herekles, He didn't have the power to change the course of a river. He just had a shovel and choices had to be made about where to start shovelling.
And its a curious thing to me that it seems like the people here who are most upset about him not being a god, of not setting everthing to rights all at once with a wave, a word and a bolt of lightning, are the ones who were constantly accusing his long time supporters (guilty as charged) of thinking he was.
July 6, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
July 6, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second the "well put."
July 6, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thirded.
July 6, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd go a step further SJ...this whole country is an embarrassment. I say that because "We the People" have been given, by the people who established this Republic, every legal and non-violent tool at our disposal to fix problems like this when they arise and we're too busy not caring to be bothered.
July 6, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right, Libertine!
Case in point is Guantanamo. If we were to have remained true to our principles, we would never have kidnapped people (suspected terrorists or not) and then imprisoned them interminably with no Rights to Habeus Corpus or other basic Rights.
And if we had not done that, we would have avoided the incredible mess we are in now wherein we find the problem compounded to such a degree that we have no idea how to deal with these detainees who surely MUST be set free immediately if we are at all concerned about honoring our founding principles as laid out by Locke and Jefferson.
It ain't like you couldn't see this mess coming from the git-go at gitmo. But we're too frightened by the boogeyman to take a minute to think things through.
You are right. We are all an embarrassment, and hypocrites too as we pretend to tell others how to conduct themselves in compliance with Human Rights.
July 6, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your whole post SJ...but even go a step farther.
Every issue facing America right now the American people collectively have been given the power to resolve. Whether it is GITMO, the war in Iraq, health care reform, domestic spying, etc we have the power to change the policy because that is inherent in a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Is part of it because we have allowed others, people in government and industry, usurp our power? Have we ceded it away because we can't be bothered to get involved because we are more interested in watching American Idol on our big new High Def TV's which we bought on credit which we can't afford since it was given based on unrealistic home values? Roughly 50% of Americans vote for president and that number is much lower for midterm elections. A people who have been given the power to determine how their government operates and can't be, as the Brits say, arsed to put that power to good use deserve what they get. And because of that what we have now is FUBAR!!!
July 6, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the question is: what next? Do we throw up our hands and give up because so many Americans are brain-dead and selfish consumers, many still in the fog left by the previous administration?
What needs to happen is a transformation of our culture. Not going to happen overnight. And in the meantime, those politicans and activists who see a better, more progessive country have to work with what is there. Right now, things seem to be headed in the right direction, with miles and miles to go. We need to get our eyes on the prize while looking for the victories that are possible in the short-term.
July 6, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
What to do next? Well I am going to keep on keeping on. I am going to continue to care, get involved and try to help change along. Even if the net effect amounts to tilting at windmills.
Don't pin the blame for us being brain dead selfish consumers on the past administration acamus. I have nothing but contempt for the previous administration but we were that way long before George 'El Presidente' Bush and his junta took power. They just recognized that fact and exploited it to their maximum advantage.
Is it being transformed? Can it be transformed? Or have we permanently become mindless sheep, too afraid of our own shadows to do anything but make sure we are well protected by the ones who only covet us as cutlets to deep fry and have for dinner?
July 6, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not blaming the past adminstration for our current culture. I agree with you that they just merely exploited it. My point is that there there is still a massive amount of the fear that was infused into the general public that makes discussions about Gitmo, torture, etc so frustrating. And it is in that climate that Obama and others have to operate.
And maybe we are just tilting at windmills. The question is as we approach the windmills, what will be our strategy. Obama's in my opinion is that of a pragmatist, sometimes too much so. But I tend to see this as an legacy of his community organizing. Being stuck in the midwest for the moment, how I approach LGBT issues is a little different (including what I am willing to settle with for the moment) than when I was out west.
We will always be in a state of transformation. And we do seem to be making progress. Just one note, on the DADT, it seems that what it is holding it up is the old gaurd in the Pentagon. That for the most part, the younger generations don't have an issue with it. With Obama, one saw a clear distinction between generations regarding whether Obama's race was an issue in and of itself.
The pace of progress seems to slow, and there is a sense, as with climate change, that we are running out of time. The time to sacrifice oneself for the shortterm gain on principle (Gitmo) versus seeking longterm sustained change can get very muddled. Where do we draw the line, where do we negoitiate, compromise and otherwise let things be not exactly where we think they out to be?
July 6, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine, we abdicate our duties because frankly, most of us have not been hurt by the policies of Empire at all. Torture is obscene, aggression a crime against humanity, illegal wiretapping an infringement of rights, the unbelievable new trillions in dollars of debt frightening, but these all happened to *other* people and in the case of debt, carried forward to our children. The day when some of us are rounded for waterboarding or indefinite detention without trial, when we pay $500 for a loaf of bread, that will be the day we get off our asses to do something. Meanwhile, we'll agree those are terrible policies but let's all TRUST in Obama to KNOW BETTER than us sheeple that these violations cannot be undone overnight.
Meanwhile, quite a lot of strawmen are flung around the amen corner - greater transparency in releasing information isn't the same as setting up a prosecution of Bush-Cheney or "seeking vengeance" as it is more melodramatically dressed.
First and foremost, there exists the FIA. You don't have to exercise those rights under this Act, but fellow Americans from ACLU to the Libertarians nonetheless do.
This right to transparency is even MORE urgent today, not less, considering the tragedy of our current circumstances.
What do you do, as a citizen, if you have a Congress that proudly marches in lock step with the Executive branch, if you have a Judicial branch that is stacked, if you have media outlets that are overwhelmingly owned by Fortune 100 companies whose very board of directors are themselves packed with either former or (near) future government bureaucrats? How are the people to know the truth in the age of nonexistent Iraqi WMDs? Of TRILLIONS of Dollars of taxpayers debt gone into the Black Hole of TARP, PPIP and the Blacked-out Bailout of Banksters who are not that needy that they would award themselves the biggest bonus in history while hundreds of thousands of families have been evicted from homes?
If “checks and balances” pertain only to the lining of pockets and not to keeping the truth of things out where We the People can see it, then what are we to do?
The despair and indeed desperation of so many Americans who repeatedly and all too often discover far too late the truth – of unimaginable corruption, of a government that insists that a restriction of personal liberties is for their own good, of the disappearance of billions of our tax dollars in the sands of the Middle East, of the mechanism of government increasingly given over to the “needs” of Corporate America. Do We the People not have a right to know in a timely fashion?
NO, according to Obama and his staunch supporters. Trust HIM. He is The One, remember? Abdicate your rights to The One. You only need to know what he decides you ought to know. That's how GREAT this country has become.
July 6, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this the country that Obama has to govern. The political fallout of such a move as just releasing those in Gitmo would be extreme. It would impact not only Obama's ability to pass legislation such as health care reform, but also to deal with issues such as the Israel-Palestine conflict. Maybe it is so fundamental that the price to pay needs to be paid by Obama. In all honesty, I am conflicted on it, but tend to fall on the side of dealing with this in small steps over the next year.
Gitmo is similiar to Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama could have just rammed it through, but instead is waiting for more a "grassroots" push to show that this is supported by the people of this country. Now we have Powell asking for a review of DADT. In the not so distant future, Obama can move forward, not with a agenda item he is imposing on the military, but with a agenda item that is expressing conventional wisdom.
July 6, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly. This country has never been as good as the marketing might suggest. The "founders" were nothing if not self-promoters first and foremost.
July 6, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This country was founded by wealthy businessmen who didn't want to pay their taxes Jason. But they did put their lives on the line in a true and real sense to establish this country. They very conceivably 'hung together'.
And, I agree, this country isn't as good as the hype suggests. Mainly because throughout our history we have not made the effort to make it as good as the marketing might suggest...it has continually been made easy for the American people to be lazy in their civic duties. In terms of our civic duty a computing cliche seems very appropriate...garbage in, garbage out.
July 6, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
We The People have yet to step up and that remains our Achilles Heel. Has been since 1964. Before that, it was the fact that many couldn't step up. We are running out of excuses for our piss-poor behavior as citizens.
July 6, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Jason...the buck stops with us. But unfortunately the group of the 'we who care' as a part of the 'whole of us' are in the vast minority. I really thought the economic downturn along with our new president might result in more people in the 'we care' group...but it hasn't worked out that way so far.
July 6, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem remains that "We Who Care" still talk to "Those Who Don't Care" like they are all idiot children who should be spanked.
It is our partisan political environment that continues to ensure sub-standard participation. Camus pointed out that this would be a long-term effort, transforming society in such a fundamental way. That is the key to unlocking our potential as a nation. Understanding this as a decades-long endeavor and and planning accordingly is just about our only hope for success.
Partisan framing and zero-sum politics will ensure we stop before we ever really get started.
July 6, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The we who care, of all political stripes, should slap the ones who don't care right across the face to get their attention Jason. If they don't care and don't get involved they are ignorant and not informed on the issues just like a child would be.
There will always be differences of opinion in what is the best course for us to pursue as a nation, and that is the nature of partisan politics, but for the ones who don't get involved, and then have the gall to complain about the countries state of affairs, I dismiss their opinions out of hand.
July 6, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best way to change someone rarely starts with a slap to the face. This is going to be a decades-long effort.
I only got involved around 2004, so there is no real way I can judge anyone for their lack of involvement. The best I can do is discuss the issues as free from partisan-framing as possible and hope to reach something resembling a common sense solution as I see it. If others agree, awesome.
If they don't, then hopefully we can discuss it and come to an understanding if not an agreement.
July 6, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also the group of people who do care, but they believe that to get involved is pointless. One only has to read some of the posts here that, if taken to be the literal truth, would indicate that all those in DC are utterly corrupt from Obama on down, that the corporations have complete and utter control over policy. What would be the point of getting involved on national issues? Especially when they are struggling with their own problems, trying to make ends meet.
I am reminded of a story related by, I believe, Hunter Thompson (of whom I am not a huge fan) about a farmer in a South American country who saw his government overturn by a coup. His response to it was the ones who used to be in power were corrupt and the one now in power were corrupt. His life, waking each morning to eke out a living in his fields would continue on the same regardless of who it was in power. The apathy arose not from a particular understanding or view point of "how things are." In this case, it was probably quite accurate.
That is why I think it is important to try to and be as accurate about politicians and the choices they have to make, and the way they make them. If we hold up some extreme ideal that no public servant can reach in this system and culture, it merely serves to expand the apathy.
July 6, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang. It should have read: ...arose from a particular understanding of "how things are."
And I would like to reiterate what Jason said about a slap in the face. Believe me, I agree with you that we need more people involved doing their civic duty, and that means more than just showing up to vote, although that alone would be nice. Not to mention that the ones who do show up to vote take time to understand the issues, or to even see that there is more than the one issue that motivates them.
There is a particular strain in American culture that boils down to: "I'll take care of myself, let others take care of themselves." It is a hardcore libertarian and individualistic streak that limits exactly what it is they care about. They're not involved with healthcare, Gitmo, etc because it doesn't concern them. Slapping them in the face and telling them they don't care won't help the matter.
What has to happen is to expand their sense of family, their sense of community, their sense of place and responsibility in this country, on this planet. Until then, they're just gonna keep on caring about what they care about and not getting involved so as to make someone else's lot in life a little better off.
July 6, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The end of my first paragraph should have read;
They conceivably could have 'hung together'.
July 6, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One perspective is that the Declaration of Independence was a political claim to make decisions for oneself, taxation with representation and all that (and as such also a business decision). So on the day we celebrate this declaration, discussing some of the most critical issues we are currently trying to decide upon seems to me to be quite appropriate.
And while I don't like the influence of lobbyists, I have yet to hear of a solution that doesn't impinge on the right of freedom of speech, one of those things that we can celebrate on the 4th. And what I heard on the campaign trail from Obama was that the lobbyists would still be at the table under his administration. The difference was that they wouldn't be the only ones at the table. The goal was to let every interest have their say, and that includes the corporate interests.
That there are still policies in place from the Bush administration that need to be overhauled, removed, etc is true. That Obama has not addressed these fast enough is worthy of debate. I would argue we can definitely see the ship has begun to turn in order to head in another direction, and that Obama has made strategic choices about which battles to fight now in his first year, and which to leave for the second, third and fourth.
I haven't always agreed with Obama and his administration, but I doubt there is anyone out there whose administration I would. Given the goal of actually accomplishing something on a progressive agenda in a world in economic meltdown, not to mention all the conflicts and wars, I would say Obama hasn't failed miserably.
July 6, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100% with you Sleepin!
If Obama had been at all honest about what he would do as President I don't think we would have much to complain about. The extreme hypocrisy of his positions during the campaign vs as President is the fundamental problem. He misled and deceived the public into thinking he would actually work for "change we can believe in" when in fact he isn't working for any substantive changes in Washington at all. Just because DC is dominated by right wing reactionary thinking that considers health insurance subsidies "socialism" doesn't mean Obama's mythical plan is going to do anything at all beyond make a rotten system even worse and more expensive. His flat out lies about transparancy, the rule of law and open government are incredible. How he blows out all that Bushian hot air on protecting the troops and how he defends war crimes like torture without batting an eye is truly shocking. I thought he was at least a man of some ethical standards. Clearly that is not the case. He's just another lying politician helping himself and his favored supporters to feed at will from the public trough. If you don't think so, just ask an exec at Goldman.
July 6, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put, oleeb! Especially your reference to Goldman Sachs. How can they ever lose, eh? They seem to own it all.
July 6, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you believe the Founders had such a sense of "extreme human rights abuses"?
John Adams presided over the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Jefferson owned slaves which counted as 3/5ths of a person in that most sacred of documents, our Constitution.
July 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The mere fact that you can point out these personal failures as the hypocrisies that they are only strengthens the case that the Declaration of Independence - and the Constitution that was derived from it - are incredibly helpful documents in guiding our conduct as citizens in this Democracy.
THAT is the lesson we celebrate on the 4th of July, and to refrain from doing so because others have fell short of absolute adherence is a truly cowardly position to adopt - wholly unworthy of those true patriots who genuinely tried/try to do better, regardless of their ultimate success or failures.
July 6, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink