Should we make a deal with Barack Obama, as Robert Reich suggested in a recent column? Reich set out some of the steps the president would have to promise to take in his second term so that we, the legion of disenchanted voters, can wholeheartedly support his re-election. Yes, a good idea--pin him down.
But that scenario set me thinking. Why rely on the commitments of someone who received our wholehearted support in the election of 2008--because we thought he had emphatically made these promises--and then tabled them upon moving into White House? Our support for 2012 should not require blind faith. Suddenly, I am less sanguine about throwing myself into supporting candidate Obama's campaign.
As an alternative, why not use Obama's incumbency to our advantage, to test the candidate's commitment before the election?
Yes, it does mean the administration will have to send Congress legislation that the Republican-dominated House of Representatives will surely deride and defeat. The Republicans will, of course, try to use the legislation as ammunition in the election, illustrating what the Republican Party stands for. But mostly, they will show what they stand against. Candidate Obama will be able to ask his opponent bluntly about the legislation: Are you for it or against it?
Mr. Obama can then say to the American voter: These bills that I have sent to Congress are what I stand for. They are what I commit to for my second term.
The legislation will also be a litmus test for the candidates in congressional elections. Candidate Obama can make a plain point: If you vote for a representative who will not support my legislation or even try to address our nation's problems, and if, as a result, I do not have a majority in the Congress, this country will continue its slow decline. The banks will continue their buccaneering attitude in the name of "free enterprise," unemployment will remain high, foreclosures will continue unabated, and any efforts to remedy these situations will be defeated.
You would be able to ask the congressman or senator for whom you will be voting if he or she supports those proposals. Put them on the spot! Get a commitment from them, too.
All this is asking a lot from a president who has not shown assertive leadership during his first term. Maybe candidate Obama doesn't think he has to take action before the election, since the Republican candidate will likely be weak. That might well be the calculated response from White House staff, who have guided the president these past three years, and who are now key members of his campaign staff.
The question is a personal one for Barack Obama. Looking to his next four years as president, does he want a mandate from voters, such as he had in 2008, as Reich suggested? Or does he want to justify our faith?
"Aye, there's the rub!" And there's the man who has to decide.
http://www.linktv.org/programs/glenn-greenwald-liberty-and-justice-for-some
Sounds much better to me.
Roosevelt was and is a clear Thinker.
If you take the time, and review the list it is primarily made up of signing documents that studies various things, promoting others, review some and establishing a few...in other words the majority of his heralded list of accomplishments is primarily made up of fairly minor things he could do without having to stand up to anyone, or go to battle for anything.
He has also demonstrated a pronounced reluctance to prosecute the obvious criminals in his administration, and continues to allow Wall Street to flourish without so much as a ruler slap on the knuckles, despite the fact that the entire world is suffering the results of their behavior.
The Justice Dept. apparantly has enough to take several of the biggest players in this criminal enterprise to court, but are not being allowed to proceed. He refused to prosecute Bush et al, but is willingly going after the whistle blowers in his administration. His record of continuing rendition, the prison in Cuba, the insane war on drugs, and no action on the environment, plus this lack luster health bill has made him a weak, ineffective moderate Republican at best. Frankly, the differences between he and Gov. Romney, while he ran Mass, elude me.
How can president Obama control a divided country, one that does not have a common vision to work towards?
How can he work with a congress that is controlled by corporate America and with senators and representatives that shy away from meaningful dialog about important issues?
How can he lead when money rules political campaigns and there is little interest in tackling this very important issues that undermines our democracy?
How can he work from the center when extremists in Congress have one main goal and nothing else: to defeat him in the next election?
I am sorry but lets be fair, the president has accomplished a lot given all the obstacles he has had to deal with. When the election comes, remember that nobody can rule people who are so fixed in their ways that they are not even willing to meet you half way.
I will definitely be voting for him again because I don't trust anyone on the other side.
Those people are about to sweep back in and take every political gain you ever made and trash it. And you are complaining about the guy who got health care reform and saved GM ended the wars and got Osama Bin Laden ? This is why republicans control your life 70% of the time . You lack the courage to stay in the fight after the first battle .You give up too esily . Life is tough my friends politics even tougher. We don''t get what we aren't willing to fight for and we don't ever get everything we want, ever. We don't keep what we have if we won't fight for it . Politics is the art of the possible not a magic lamp .
Is Rush Limbaugh giving up ? Is fox propaganda giving up ? Is the tea party laying down now ? Democratic voters are responsible for losing congress to the republicans and democratic voters who turn away from this fight over a few disappointments in the face of the coming corporate money flooded campaign deserve what they get for quitting . President Gingrich/Romney/Bachman/Perry .
F&F
Yes, the man has some accomplishments, but there is a pattern to them: the corporate interests were not involved. They didn't care if DADT passed, but they did care to have their cronies directly hired by BHO, Inc to fill positions on his staff and cabinet.
When candidate Obama decided to reject public money for his campaign and held his $10,000 a plate fundraisers instead, when he went to the corporations to pay for his campaign, candidate Obama became BHO, Inc- a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
And now he needs the corporations again to finance his BILLION dollar reelection. The man cannot be a leader if he isn't the boss. And we all know that the man who cuts the check is the boss. As it is the multinational financiers are cutting the check. Until The People do so, they cannot hope to be the boss, and BHO, Inc does not work for them.