I have been saying for a long time now that President Obama is the world's worst negotiator and has absolutely no interest in fighting for progressive principles. I didn't make this up out of the whole cloth. I voted for the guy and I desperately wanted him to succeed. But my job is to cover politics and when you cover Obama all you see is him running for cover.
Let me give you a small example nobody talks about, but I think is telling. After Gabby Giffords was shot, his administration indicated that he would do a major speech on gun control ... later. I told my audience that was not going to happen. Why? Because I know Obama. He hates, hates, hates conflict. And he would never take on an issue where he did not have overwhelming support. It's not in his nature.
Of course, there was no major speech. Instead there was a small op-ed buried in a local Arizona paper (a lot of times they write op-eds when they don't want any video out there that can be used in campaign commercials or repeated on the evening news that night). But that wasn't even the telling part. There were about half a dozen issues he could have addressed on gun control. The major one after the shooting was how many bullets a magazine could hold. Would he address that? Of course, not!
It turned out that he advocated for every position that polled over 67%. But, alas, the magazine issue only polled at 51% -- not good enough for Obama. He has the majority of Americans behind him, this was the major issue being discussed at the time and he has an incredible moment to tell this story -- and he left it out of the editorial. It's hard to imagine a politician more timid. It's almost as if he is trying to be the exact opposite of Bush -- all brains, no guts.
These days many are also wondering about the brains part. Has he not been paying attention to Republicans at all? Is he awake? Could any sentient person actually believe they were going to compromise this time around, let alone the next time? He was out there this morning talking about how he is looking forward to compromising with Republicans again over the Super Committee.
Unfortunately, that is the only guiding principle Obama has -- compromise. But that is no principle at all. What if I wanted to sell you a car for $10,000 and you offered me $1? Would compromise dictate that I sell it to you for $5,000? For $2? What if the car is really worth about $10,000, should I compromise anyway? Compromise is a tactic, it's not a principle. It doesn't give you the right answer. It is sometimes necessary, but offers no guidance in what should be the final outcome.
Can anyone name Obama's principles? Something he will not bend on? A progressive priority he will defend to the end?
Does Obama even think of himself as a progressive? He once pointed to a glass half-filled with water and told Sen. Bernie Sanders, "That's the problem with you progressives. You see this as half-empty." You progressives?
But does anyone think that the guy who hired Tim Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, William Daley, Peter Orszag, Ben Bernanke, etc. is remotely progressive? If you looked throughout the whole country, could you find more conservative, establishment Democrats? Barely, if at all. And, of course, some of those guys aren't even Democrats.
But finally, it isn't just us on the "professional left" pointing this out. After yet another unconditional surrender in the debt ceiling talks, he's hit his tipping point. Just go talk to any group of liberals in the country and see if half of them aren't incredibly pissed off at him. I do it all the time and their whispers of discontent has grown into a cacophony.
Finally, nearly every progressive commentator is talking about his profound weakness, if it even is that and not something worse (some have started to question whether he even wants to win on progressive issues or if he is fundamentally conservative).
Now, the Obama supporters won't believe this either. They'll blame the messenger as usual. But go ahead, ignore this message at your peril. Apparently, the people at the White House think they're such geniuses. "Did you know it turns out centrists decide elections?" This is the kind of politics you learn in third grade and they think they're playing three dimensional chess. Yes, independents are important, but they hate weakness in their leaders. Giving the Republicans everything they want every single time doesn't appeal to any independents and will lead to half of your own voters staying at home.
How did he not see that the Republicans would bludgeon him with the lack of jobs after he agreed to their spending cuts -- which would only lower the number of jobs in the country? How could anyone not see that and think they know anything about politics?
A young woman I talked to at the airport last week said that she will not vote in the next election. I hate to hear that. I think if you don't vote, you have no right to complain the next time around. You have voluntarily ceded your voice in this democracy. I told her that and she said, "After Obama, what is there left to hope for?"
If the clever guys at the White House don't realize they've hit their tipping point, they're in for a rude awakening when that tsunami washes over them. They're headed into the 30s in the polls and I don't think they have any clue how to get out of there. They don't even know that they're about to hit an iceberg. They think they're just one more compromise from turning the corner.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Adam Winkler: Romney's Bork Barrel Politics
Obama Attends Return of Remains at Air Base After Fatal Afghanistan Crash
Democrats doubt Barack Obama's reelection chances
Cheers all around as Obama sets fuel efficiency goals for big trucks
White House's former 'car czar' to drive into sunset
Negotiation is not rocket science and there's no use in pretending that it is.
His slippery, secretive, and sometimes sleazy history were also reasons not to back him.
But why are "progressives" disappointed? What did he promise them that he didn't deliver on?
Sure, he found closing Gitmo and leaving Iraq immediately to be impossible, but what did he promise domestically and fail to do? His promises were so vague that you could read into them anything you wanted. And that's precisely what "progressives" and many independents did.
Over the past 30 years they've upped the stakes. Winner take all. As a minority party they MUST suppress the vote--and they do it brilliantly, delivering GW Bush's two presidential wins with magic tricks in Florida and then Ohio. Now they're after Obama in the same fashion with their right wing noise machine blasting 12x7. He has Carter's unimpeachable probity so they cast him as a Black Power, Liberation Theology, Muslim, communist-socialist-nazi, Kenyan anti-colonialist. They obstruct everything he tries. (And sadly his efforts have been rather feeble lately).
Democrats must wake up. The Republicans can't win numerically, and they can't win on ideas. They win by following their established playbook: do all they can to destroy any Democrat's presidency. Republicans think they own the presidency because they know how to use it to further their ends, ie, making the rich a whole lot richer. In the process they have no use for compromise or collaboration. Why abandon successful tactics when gridlock works so well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-im-mad-at-obama/2011/08/10/gIQAhEPi6I_story.html
are now criticizing Obama, they must be racists just like the Tea Party.
Racism is when people wanted to "take their country back" when he had just taken office and had not materially changed anything yet. He still hasn't. But they are still freaking out about his evil socialism, etc. In fact he acts like a moderate Republican which is what freaks US out.
We are not politicianÂs, or crypto-movÂie stars taking part in a larger drama or "the great game.". We are the people living the results of politics. There is no next time or eventually that will come to fruition, where we can finally stand up for what we believe in. We live here right now and not standing up for what we believe in becomes who we are, how we live, and what we believe. It clears the space necessary for what actually happens to us, and guides and eases its unfolding.
Not standing up for what we believe does not postpone what we believe in. It defines it. There is no being who you are or believing what you believe later. You're doing it now. Embracing republican policies does not make you a democrat who is a canny schemer, someone who understands realpolitik, and a great long-term thinker.
It makes you a republicanÂ.
It is so frustrating. I wonder if Americans Elect will really field a candidate? That will be the real slap both political parties need.
===========================================
The DLC-controlled DemocraticParty counts on voter ignorance and gives lip service to all populist issues. Like the RepublicanParty, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations. Each party uses high-priced public relations firms, with spinmeisters crafting sophisticated propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true.
The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislation with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeering ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.
Democratic voters thought they were saying no to all that, corporate and lobbyist control when they chose Obama over Hillary (Hillary supporters are comprised of DLCers and those who don't know anything about the DLC and believe the Clintons are liberals).
If you go back and watch CandidateObama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, listen with your now 'experienced ears' (experienced in lawyer-speak, aka Bush-speak, although Bush needed a team of speech writers to do what Obama is able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote.
Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of HillaryClinton. It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist. [News Flash: Even BruceBartlett, domestic policy advisor to RonaldReagan and Treasury official in the George HWBush administration said the other day, "i think the dirty secret is that Obama is a moderate conservative. if i were a liberal democrat, i probably would be upset." And for those who won't accept that, "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"]
The truth is that Obama's nothing but a politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense. It turns out that doing what's right for transnational corporations is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America." He did a snow job on everybody.
I would not vote for Hillary because the Clintons were up to their necks in the DLC, along with pals like Harold Ford and Joe Lieberman. It is WORK to get informed because there is so much misinformation. If not an outright lie or lie of omission, at least much deliberately misleading information. But with such high unemployment and high frustration there is more participation than ever on the blogs.
Marcospinelli- do you think it is possible that Americans Elect will actually get a candidate on the ballot?
I went to americanselect.org and registered as a delegate. Why not? I'm up for any alternative to this corrupt system.
His inexperience often shows in using terms like "compromise." A good executive doesn't talk about compromises. He talks about tradeoffs and priorities. Yes, win-win is cliche, but it also happens to be a lot of truth behind the concept.
Progressives and conservatives can work together to both get what they want on many issues, if we can dig deep enough to find our common values. A good executive would intuitively know that, and can use appropriate language to find common ground.
BTW, a budget deal that cuts tens of billions when there's 1.5 trillion deficit isn't a serious deal for either side. There isn't a winner or loser ... just kicking the can until we're forced to deal with the issue. And at some point, we will be. Let's be friends when that happens.
Then again, I think conservatives and republicans have been quite different categories for a long time now.
From my vantage point, this guy has done more to harm American than any president I can remember... and that goes back to Truman! Thankfully, it has happened so fast, and was so painful, that I believe he is going to get hammered in 2012.... assuming he has the "Baraksticles" even run.
On a side issue, I continue to be baffled that you haven't gone after this guy for his citizenship. You've all seen the fake birth certificate. You've seen that he listed Kenya on his certificate before it was even called Kenya. Any Photoshop guru can laughingly see the amateurish effort to produce that certificate. He's not qualified to be your president.
The world needs you to be strong. BO is doing every thing in his power to ensure you won't be. Get on that .. .please!
Since you are so very quick to believe this flaming pants on fire lie, I can find absolutely no reason whatsoever to place an ounce of credibility in your summary of our President.
I tend to go with the old adage if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck......
Blue Dog = You might as well re-register as a Republican
During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. In 2006, we did. Nothing changed.
NancyPelosi and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney and beating Republicans back, among which were investigations, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the BushAdministration to testify under oath, and impeachment.
They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".
In 2008, we gave them 60 for the DemocraticCaucus. And we gave them the White House.
Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America than ever voted for any other presidential candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool.
And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & slooooowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans", after Republicans had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything, in lockstep.
Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation. Those who know anything about politics know that this was a dead giveaway that the last thing these politicians want is an active populist movement.
Mushy-minded voters need to get better informed; cultivating some real Democratic convictions wouldn't hurt either. Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigations and prosecutions of BushCheney, etc., off the table, putting SocialSecurity, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, etc., on the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies and going BushCheney one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinitely because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using JoeLieberman to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparency, and gut the FOIA, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politicians purporting to be Democrats doing this.
It is time to wake the sleeping giant.
Why aren't Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Democrats talking about the Progressive Caucus's budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama's AND Republicans' plans.
As Krugman has said, the Progressives' budget "balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security's solvency forever)... and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense."
But Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Whether it's ending Bush's tax cuts or the wars, the '14th Amendment Solution' (and it is, indeed, a legitimate option), etc., Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power.
That's Obama's style, taking solutions that work for the People off the table and out of consideration when we're discussing how we want to proceed. That's what he did during the healthcare debate -- He took single payer off the table before negotiations ever began. Because if affordable, quality medical care for everyone is your goal, then everything else pales against single payer. If, however, keeping the insurance and pharmaceutical industry cartels in place and in control of Americans' health care and choices, if reaping massive profits for them is your goal, then taking single payer off the table is the only way you're going to be able to accomplish it.
If Republicans are going to turn down anything Obama and Democrats put forth, why then aren't Obama and Democrats fighting for the BEST plan out there?
It was Obama who would not compromise on tax reform in order to have increased tax revenues. He needed to punish the wealthy as part of his class warfare platform and didn't feel that another, more effective approach, but one that did not punish the rich, would be useful personally.
The public will see this before the elections.