|
||
Obama's Critics From the Left: As Wrong as His Critics From the Right
When President-elect Obama said he'd reach out to the Republicans and all Americans, he was telling the truth. Apparently some people on the left hoped he was lying. Obama's "sin" in their eyes is that he is keeping his promises.
Other than the perpetually aggrieved paranoid cranks on the far right -- FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, James Dobson etc., -- most Americans (no matter who they voted for) are just glad that someone brimming with confidence, intelligence and good will is in charge of our rescue, at last! (Watching President-elect Obama's recent press conferences, one could hear a collective sigh of relief from sea to shining sea.) Nevertheless, a few critics from the left are now demanding progressive purity from President-elect Obama that is not in keeping with his clearly stated campaign promise to bring all Americans together, and to put governance and competence ahead of ideology. In that sense they are working against the aims of his presidency.
A few progressive critics are bewailing the fact that President-elect Obama's cabinet is "too centrist," or made up of "too many former Clintonites," or that he's working with the Republicans, or that he is "too hawkish on Afghanistan." Turns out some Pharisaical progressives are into guilt by association; "Look at the bad company he's keeping!" they groan. General Jones?! Clinton?! Gates?! The sky is falling!
As someone who escaped the fever swamp of the Religious Right many years ago -- I know fundamentalism when I smell it, be it religious or secular. And the criticisms of President-elect from the left stink to high heaven of fundamentalist orthodoxy, albeit with a "progressive" twist.
Here are a few examples of the fundamentalists of the left trying to make Obama fit their political "theology:"
Chris Bowers writing in Open Left (Nov 21):
"I know everyone is obsessed with the 'team of rivals' idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated... Why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely."
Cris Hayes writing in The Nation (Nov 21):
"Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one."
William Greider in the The Nation ( Nov 25)
" A year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page, his campaign declaration seemed to promise a fresh start for Washington. I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward... Obama's [cabinet] selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush."
And this from Noam Chomsky, the grand old man of the left himself, on Democracy Now!. (posted on Alternet Nov 28)
"Rhetoric we know, but what are [Obama's] actions?... The first choice was the Vice President, Joe Biden, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq... The first post-election appointment was for Chief of Staff, which is a crucial appointment; determines a large part of the president's agenda. That was Rahm Emanuel... again, a longtime Washington insider. Also, one of the leading recipients in congress of funding from the financial institutions hedge funds... Obama's choices... [include] Robert Rubin and Larry Summers... among the people who are substantially responsible for the crisis. One leading economist, one of the few economists who has been right all along in predicting what's happening, Dean Baker, pointed out that selecting them is like selecting Osama Bin Laden to run the war on terror..."
What is the message from these cheerless Scrooges of the left? Joy? Celebration? The hard work of actual governance? Ba Humbug! We don't do winning! We don't do actual governance! We only do permanent opposition! Coal in everyone's stockings... again!
Before I continue please note: There is a line between opposition to say, a specific policy and undermining our new President-elect's overall efforts by casting doubt on every selection he makes (or doesn't make) for his team, let alone pitting his rhetoric against his actions in a manner that implies he is lying. This "line" matters, even if it's fluid and hard to pin down because this is a critical -- perhaps fatal -- moment in American history.
That said... There is a reason that the likes of Saints Kucinich (from the left) and Huckabee (from the right) are not the President-elect: most Americans don't want the Church Ladies of the right or the left running the country. Sunday school is one thing, the presidency another. Our country is not so much "center-right" or "center-left" as fundamentally anti-ideological. (Which, by the way, is one reason why the Sarah Palin nomination backfired so badly for McCain.)
There are two kinds of people, those that allow reality and experience to define and constantly modify their ideas and those who insist that their ideas define reality. The first kind make things work. The second type (be they right wing creationists, or progressive purists) stand on the sidelines wringing their hands and criticizing the doers for their "heresy," because doing anything in the real world always equals compromise, learning and change.
What they of the purist left want from Obama is an ideological orthodoxy of thought and action that does not actually exist, except in their imaginations. And where do they think they are living? This is America and that means that Obama will be trying to govern a country so diverse that Sarah Palin and Noam Chomsky both have a fan base here!
Moreover many of Obama's legion of young and energetic supporters have not heard of, nor do they care about, the Noam Chomskys or James Dobsons of this world. History is moving on. Obama is bigger than the pundits. He's bigger than the movements that have divided us. Believe it or not -- this is a new day.
As Thomas B. Edsall wisely noted in the Huffington Post (Nov 29) in Battle Royale: Center-Right Versus Center-Left In the Democratic Party:
"A close examination of the data suggests that the political and policy-making environment is more complex than either side [in the left/right debate within the Democratic Party] acknowledges, and that thinking in terms of a left-right dichotomy may distort policy options."
Under the surface gloss of the left wing criticism of Obama there is, I suspect, something else: the critic's psychological need to feel indispensable, not to mention superior to those of us who like, trust and will follow President-elect Obama because he strikes our gut as likable, trustworthy and deserving of loyalty based on the self-evident merits of his outstanding character. It's just not in their genes to ever be so "ordinary" as to become team players, even when their side has just won. They would rather be in permanent opposition than ever be accused of -- horrors! -- being mainstream.
Again; I know about this form of messianic mental illness all too well from my own delusional days as a leader in the fundamentalist evangelical world back in the 70s and early 80s. We were proud of being outsiders, yet resentful of not being included, and yet again weirdly and moralistically haughty because of our self-imposed outsider status.
For the fundamentalists of the left, it's no good just getting the job done, let alone doing it in a way that mirrors this diverse, complex and one-size-does-not-fit-all country we live in. From the point of view of the ideologically pure of heart, the only way to get the job done is an in-your-face crusade that humiliates former opponents. This is the don't-forgive-Lieberman "reeducation" theory of political change: it's not enough to just win then change things, you need to do so in a way that leaves anyone who ever disagreed with you punished and out in the cold, furious and plotting your downfall.
Here's the right wing ideologue's nightmare:
What if President-elect Obama keeps being truthful and doing what he said he'd do? What happened to all those on the right who have been proven wrong about things they said during the campaign, for instance the right-wing Jews who said Obama would be surrounded by anti-Semites, and then the first thing he does is make Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff? And what are the right-wing evangelicals, who said he'd be a socialist appeaser and friend to terrorists, to do now that President-elect Obama has appointed a pragmatic economic team, and persuaded Gates to stay on for a year at Defense and General Jones to advise him? And what will the anti-abortion community do when Obama does what he said he'd do and initiates programs that actually reduce abortions by lifting women, families, teens and children out of poverty?
Here's the left wing ideologue's nightmare:
President-elect Obama does not bring the emotional and psychological baggage of my boomer generation's schoolyard fights with him. He meant it when he said he doesn't see a "red" or "blue" state America but the United States of America. He's of the left but without the I-told-you-so smarminess of we boomer culture warriors. He's progressive but without the need to punish former opponents. He won handily but is not interested in putting his political foes in their "place." He actually seems to want to serve all Americans, even the "wrong" kind, even the "other."
President-elect Obama is smarter than his critics and a better and more strategic politician than his rivals. As my friend (blogger and commentator) Frank Gruber wrote to me;
"Every move he makes is confident. He is in charge and thinking ten moves ahead. If I was a rival politician, left or right, I'd feel overwhelmed -- what's he going to do next? It's even more baffling because Obama tells you in advance not only what he's going to do, but what you're going to do. Think about that debate when he told Senator Clinton he was looking forward to getting advice from her after he became president. At the time I'll bet she dismissed that as mere rhetoric. Wrong! Who is going to be Secretary of State? Or what about when he gave that speech at the beginning of the summer of 08 outlining every tactic the McCain campaign would use against him?"
As for we self-proclaimed commentators, we have a President-elect who has more intellectual firepower than all the punditry put together. How confusing! That's good for America. But that's something a whole class of professional carpers will never forgive. And so expect mirror image left/right attacks from the class of talkers to whom the glass is always half empty, because they insist that any water that might be in the glass is inferior if they didn't personally invent it!
One reason that President Obama is going to be a very successful President is precisely because his understanding of the cosmos is that his ideas (political, philosophical or theological) do not define it. That's called wisdom. That's called humility. And that is the very wisdom lacking in Obama's ideologically driven left wing critics, who never seem able to complete a paragraph with the words, "But I could be wrong." That is why their posture is already a crouch of disappointed expectation, even before President-elect Obama has been sworn in!
When President-elect Obama said that he will try to do what works, regardless of the ideological label or where a good idea comes from, he was telling the truth. Most Americans know how lucky we are to have this remarkable, pragmatic, subtle, thoughtful man for our President-elect. Most of us also know how lucky we are that our next president -- unlike our current White House occupant -- is more interested in being a good president than in proving his "side" right about everything. And most of us also know that the stakes are sky high and that now is a time to stand with our new President-elect, come hell or high water or, perhaps, because of the hell and high water we're already neck deep in.
Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback.
Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As I read the comments condemning Barack Obama, all I can think of is the quote "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem".
President-Elect Obama has not even taken office yet and is already being subject to more criticism than Dubya faced for the first few years. I'm not sure that I agree with every decision he has made, but what I know is that he deserves as much time to put the country back together as Bush had to destroy it.
Get a grip - take a deep breath - stop complaining - and find out how you can be part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem.
"There are two kinds of people, those that allow reality and experience to define and constantly modify their ideas and those who insist that their ideas define reality. The first kind make things work. The second type (be they right wing creationists, or progressive purists) stand on the sidelines wringing their hands and criticizing the doers for their "heresy," because doing anything in the real world always equals compromise, learning and change."
Amen.
I find something positively abhorrent with the concept that we already know the direction of the Obama presidency by the members of his cabinet. If we had elected a weak leader (such as is about to vacate the White House) there might be grounds to be all aflutter already, but it is obvious in the extreme that PE Obama is a very strong leader who follows his own counsel by the way he ran his campaign.
I am a left-of-center converted righty, but I do not see why the hard lefties are already so up in arms simply because they obviously did not listen to PE Obama’s campaign speeches or read his position papers. If they had, they would have realized that an Obama administration would look very like it does. In a country like the US, it is impossible to move it left in huge steps—people must be persuaded to that it is in their best interest to do so, which can be difficult in a country with a long history of individualism such as ours.
I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning and believe that Bush, et al, committed a large number of impeachable crimes, but I do not see where we gain anything in our current straits by trying to take on yet another daunting and probably impossible task that the American people would almost certainly view as frivolous at a time such as this.
Brave. Well said. I want people (left, right, pundits) to just stop trying to second guess and analyze everything the President-Elect is doing. We elected him for a reason. I trust him and know he will make decisions that are in the best interest of this country.
What most posters in the comments section have missed is that at this time in American History we do not have the time for vindictive politics. Sure, it would be great to correct ALL the wrongs of the Bush administration from Abu Ghraib to Katrina and so on. On the other hand, there are some policies that are independent of color or party -- such as those concerning our economic future and our national security.
I was taught some time ago that it is much more constructive to plan for the future than to try and fix the past. Sure, the past teaches you and guides you, as in: We should never repeat the mistakes of Iraq, Katrina, and so on. That's what a new Obama administration is offering.
What the author of this post is clearly saying is that both the ideologues of the left and the right do not understand that living in the past encumbers one with baggage. What sort of baggage? Well, if you have lived in the South, like I have, there are whole swaths of the population who have still not gotten over the loss of the Confederate states. It is this logic that still pervades some in the Republican party.
I believe, in the end, the governance of our nation by the 44th President will be a transformational time for our country and maybe the world, and all the pundits will be proven wrong.
You could be right if things were different in the USA. The fact of the matter is that we are a nation built on precedents.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the SCOTUS interprets laws and can strike them down as Unconstitutional? Nowhere. And yet, the SCOTUS has been doing just that for almost two centuries! The reason? Because one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided that's what the purpose of the court was, and no one removed that precedent.
Before to the 22nd Amendment only one President had ever served more than two terms, even though it wasn't illegal or Unconstitutional. Why? Because George Washington stepped down after two terms and no one (with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR) tried to challenge the precedent, and only ONE of them succeeded.
Prior to the 25th Amendment the Constitution said NOTHING about the Vice President assuming the office on the death of the President. And yet it happened every time. Why? Because John Tyler (known as "His Accidency") decided when William Henry Harrison died after a month in office took the job. And no one challenged that precedent!
If we allow what bush has done to stand, then any future President who wishes to use the powers taken by bush will be able to! I'm not worried about Obama, but what about HIS successors??
So what is your point? Let us assume Obama (or Holder, his AG) does want to investigate and possibly prosecute Bush administration officials for crimes they committed while in office. What purpose would it serve to telegraph that intention now? Not only does it fail to serve a purpose, I believe it would be counterproductive, would reduce the necessary cooperation Obama's transition team currently needs from the White House and would make enemies with GOP members of Congress that Obama need to make big changes on policy concerning climate change, health care and education. I welcome your response to my questions.
After Abu Ghraib, Iraq, Guantanamo, etc, people on the left are somehow wrong-headed to believe that more than a slight shift in direction is needed in these areas? Why is that so far-fetched? These actions of the US have cost us many lives, particularly in Iraq, and will cost us lives for the forseeable future, as those adversely affected by the US' bad decisions of late will wait for their turn to exact revenge in whatever way they can. The families of the victims of Abu Ghraib or other wrongful treatment in Iraq - those people will never stop hating us. Never. And it looks sadly like all of these actions and decisions, criminal actions and decisions - are going to go entirely un-punished. This may be a minor detail to short-sighted, self-important pundits everywhere, but it gives millions of Americans pause. Reconciliation is good, and I'm not interested in Obama trying to denigrate and humiliate the Republicans any further than they've done to themselves. But wanting accountability which could only ever come from an appointment from 'the left' (centrist Dems signed off on the torture and sexual humiliation, and can't be trusted to handle its prosecution, as they want to protect themselves) is not punitive, it is the simple demand for justice. And it is very important. And sadly, it does look like both the Iraqi's and Americans back home, will be denied this justice. This is not something to celebrate or gloss over.
onceler- Thank you for stating (so eloquently) what should never be forgotten, that justice is a basic tenet of democracy and freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Without it, we are lawless and our behavior becomes rogue.
Reading this article, I, too, noticed how this very subject was omitted. America will never recover from the stain on Her name, if we do anything less than what was done by the Nuremberg Trials. imho, all other comments about disagreements and disappointments in Obama's recent decisions, pale in comparison to this issue. But I could be wrong...
"But I could be wrong..."
yes.. you are.
The nation does not need "Nuremberg Trials". It needs crisis management now. It needs responsible leadership, and it needs to let go of the cycle of retribution and counter attack.
Given the choice between "trials" staged for political theater that would ultimately impose no sentences, and a forward looking government trying its best to learn from the mistakes of the past as it moves forward, I choose the latter.
You aren't seeking justice, you are seeking payback. Time to let go and look ahead instead of backwards.
Please see my comment above about how nonconstructive it would be during the transition if Obama were to currently telegraph his intent for trials and investigations.
I am as progessive as they come but I voted for Obama specifically because of what he is doing now. He said he would do this...and he is. If you are surprised, you weren't listening. What he is doing is a political masterstroke. If you want to win an argument, you must first remove your opponent's argument against you. When it comes time to push through the first major changes of the 21st century (comparable to social security, medicare, civil rights, etc), he's going to need many republicans, and he'll have them.
Think about this: The right rails ferociously about medicare and social security but even the most right-wing president we've had in 50 years could not mess with them significantly. In countries with national health care, the conservatives complain all they want but now that it's there, no one will ever take it away. The citizens wont allow it. I suspect Obama will usher a new social paradigm that will endure for generations and that's what we all voted for. That's the change he was talking about.
Mr. Schaeffer, you have the perfect background to understand this subject. This is a deeply insightful andn welcome analysis.
“Abraham Lincoln managed to appoint to his cabinet four of his rivals to the 1860 Republican nomination. Barack Obama has now made one of his, his vice president, another of his, secretary of state, a third likely to become his secretary of commerce. But in our fifth story on the Countdown, as he rolled out his national security team, the president-elect could now out-Lincoln Lincoln. He also has a secretary of defense fresh from the Bush administration, an attorney-general and a U.N. ambassador from the Clinton administration, a head of an economic recovery advisory board out of the Carter and Reagan administrations, and a national security advisor who appeared at at least one campaign event for the senator Obama defeated in the election last month. This is not the dream of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s publishers come true, a Team of Rivals; this is now bordering on a coalition government.”
Keith Olberman, December 1, 2008
What you meant to say is that HuffPost is as WRONG and pro-Establishment as any Right-wing-neocon blog out there. Why shouldn't progressives, and better yet, PATRIOTS WHO WANT THE BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY, expect more from our "leaders?" There's a clear difference between sensible Republicans and NEOCONS. The Neocons are here to destroy the earth, and it pains me to see Obama keep war-monger, Gates. Is he not the dangerous ideologue Obama has denounced throughout his utterly phony presidential campaign?
It's true that Obama promised to "reach across the isle," but at the same time, he promised to end "politics as usual" in Washington, and it's a little hard to do that, when you're pallin' around with those birds of a feather.
And you're wrong about Kucinich. If the lamestream media gave him a chance, he'd garner more support from the public. They, like you, and the other pro-establishments out there, fear a man who stands for people -- unlike Obama who VOTED for the Wall Street bailout, and VOTED to continue to fund the imperialist wars, and VOTED for the patriot act, and VOTED to limit class action lawsuits against corporate abuse.
EXCUSE us "lefties" for wanting more out of our leaders. We apologize for wanting a more civil foreign policy. Excuse us for wanting a greener earth, and a sound economy for ourselves and our children.
If Obama continues the evil policies of the last 8 years, then he won't be seeing 2012.
The whole point of the post is that criticism should be about actual policy... you know AFTER he's had a chance to do something.
Just because his appointments don't pass your rigid ideological litmus tests does NOT mean they won't get the results and change we were promised.
I love how you say the reason that Kucinich can't attract independents or centrist is because the media "doesn't give him a chance" and the public "fears a man who stands for the people". Wow... so we are all just stupid people who could not reach the conclusion that his ideas are impractical, and ideological cotton candy that sounds good on paper, but ignores reality.
Well glad YOU get to decide what the proper belief and candidates are for everyone else.
And anyone who thinks that by looking at this cabinet and the policies Obama has repeatedly laid out that this will be a repeat of the last 8 years, you need to up the meds.
Gates is not a neocon. Anyone who keeps up with foreign policy is clear on that. Like Brent Scowcroft, he diverges from the Wolfowitz/Cheney/ Feith view of America's role in the world. He was brought in to clean up the mess Rumsfeld made.
Kucinich ran for President twice. He campaigned many days in Iowa and NH and he could barely garner votes. I have enormous respect for him. But the people of NH and Iowa did not have a gun put to their heads by the MSM and told how to vote. You obviously disagree with Obama on various issues. Do you think Obama will not follow through on a greener environment? He supports cap-and-trade. If he makes liberal appointments now, he may lose the ability to get some of his legislation through congress. Will you give him credit if he does? Name one significant piece of legislation Kucinich has gotten through in to law in his long career. Just one.
As for withdrawal from Iraq, he reiterated his stance yesterday. Don't you think it may be easier to effectuate it with some centrists who won't engender unnecessary partisan sniping?
Let's give him a chance. What has Kucinich accomplished in that regard in his very long career. Perhaps it helps to shape debate but it doesn't help people send the kids to school, make the air we breath any cleaner or get the troops home from Iraq any faster.
cheforacle: I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt to the point where I *voted* for him on November 4, 2008. And I agree with the strategy of befriending thy enemy in order to effectuate change, however, I just don't see "change" happening with those "more of the same" folks he's put in his cabinet. By Obama's own logic, Clinton and Gates and Summers represent MORE OF THE SAME. Is that not what he's been saying for the past two years, or no? Why is it a bad thing when I say it, but it's ok for Obama to say one thing and do the other?
Oh, and if you seriously think the corporate media does not play a super-duper major role in who makes it to the White House, then you have a lot to learn. And if you really think the media does not prevent certain candidates from moving ahead, then you have more to learn than I previously thought. We are a so-called Democratic country, but for some reason, we're presented with two candidates every four years.
BTW, Of course I'm willing to give Obama a chance. In fact, that's all I can do from this point on. He, unlike George Bush, was elected by the people, so we have to respect that and see what happens.
I'm not a left-wing ideologue but I seriously question some of Obama's appointments. I hope Obama doesn't spend the next four years trying to prove that he isn't a liberal.
That's my concern as well. Chris Weigant wrote an article saying that he believes Obama will do something shortly after inauguration to anger the left and boost his street cred amongst the right. I agree. I disagree w/ Chris that this will somehow bring the right to his side. Their primary concern is getting back in power and they are not about to let Obama "look good' because he was nice to them.
And that has been the Dems problem since Carter (hence the formation of the DLC). For whatever reasons... they believe that if they act more like "conservatives" that the Republicans will come to "see the light". However... if you don't have faith in your own ideas... why would someone else come to believe in the.
Another thing... I don't want to see all left wing progressives in Obama's cabinet... but it sure would be nice to see one or two. Like Chris Hayes said (and is posted above)... so far there hasn't been one. And for those of you who will point out that there will be progressives behind the scenes... why hide them? Why do liberals seem to be so ashamed of being liberal????
You have put into words everything I've been thinking. Thank you!
Obama assembled a top notch campaign team WITHOUT our help, WITHOUT our input because most didn't even know his name enough to care about giving their opinion. That team did a brilliant job. While we were wringing our hands about how he "should" be running his campaign, he proved quite a few of us wrong because he won. Won in states Democrats haven't carried in a long time, won by a popular vote margin Democrats haven't seen in a while.
He gathered a campaign team that got things done and by the looks of things he seems to be gathering a cabinet that will help him get things done. Frankly THAT is the change I can believe in, that is the change I voted for.
In 2002 Obama said "what I'm opposed to is a dumb war" and I believe the left is now fighting a "dumb war". Do they care that we pull out of Iraq or stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon or do they care more that Hillary Clinton will be the face of that project?
WITHOUT OUR HELP???? Speak for yourself sister... but I... and many others I know... helped out a lot.
Obama was the best choice at the time. Those of us on "The Left" or otherwise known as ordinary Americans who have seen what Neocons have done to this Nation for 30 years and want to fix it, agreed to support an honest man who had good judgment. We were well aware that he was a Centrist who's feet would have to be held to the fire (not unlike FDR) in order to heal the Middle Class and re-create a level playing field again. Only progressive policies can do that in these drastic times. The pendulum has to swing back in the other direction to undo the damage. Obama will get nowhere playing in the middle of the street trying to please everybody. Obama can throw some crumbs to the little people and keep hiring the economists and CEO's who ruined us and are only concerned about the elite no matter how much they say they are sorry for what they've done, and everybody can applaud how non-partisan he is but it's not going to solve our problems. Wise people know what playing nice with Neocons will get you...exactly what we have now. It's not about "sides", Frank, it's about survival as we know it.
I think you missed the point of his piece. I'm a liberal and if Obama achieves his stated goals (or even most of them) we will have moved more to the left than in any time since LBJ's time. Whether he has people from Bush's or Clinton's administration with him is less relevant than the results. Obama got to the Presidency by playing partially "to the middle" so I think he's already rebutted that point. When I hear statements like "Obama can throw crumbs to the little people" I can tell that your cynicism has taken full hold of you and you do not understand anything about who our next President is.
AMEN, Frank! BRAVO.
Love your writings....
really?
While Frank has quoted Left leaning individuals and publications. They are not the only critics of Obama's staffing decisions. I don't consider the NY Times a bastion of Left wing subversion. Yet they also question the selection of Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers for Obama's economic team:
"Given that history, the question that most needs answering is not whether Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers are men of talent - obviously they are - but whether they have learned from their mistakes, and if so, what."
Just because we voted for Obama doesn't mean that we can't have legitimate criticism with some of his choices. I for one wouldn't mind a little fresh perspective from somebody who actually saw the economic train wreck coming. I don't consider this a "far left" perspective. I call it putting people in place that actually had the correct perspective and vision on the economic situation.
Criticize yes. But, the man has not even been sworn in and has the chance to show what he is planning to do.
I consider that way premature.
I prefer to wait until we see what the results are first!
Exactly, you said it much better than I could.
Liberals are more concerned with feeling powerful in their opposition than actual governance.
People in the real world need health care and pay equity, better schools and affordable college - they are not on some ideological trip.
These are the folks who dispense their wisdom from an ivory tower, unwilling to get their hands dirty actually providing solutions.
Are you kidding me??? So, you're saying that they should provide no opposition? Of course you totally ignore the fact that they end up being right on many issues, except the most far left issues.
Are you also saying that Libs have not fought tooth and nail for better pay, health care, education for average Americans?? Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! A true kool-aid drinker who thinks tha last 8 years were pure nirvana (or the Dems fault if things didn't go exactly right). Pathetic...
What I am saying is since we elected Obama on a progressive platform of health care, education reform, green energy, etc - and he has constantly said he intends to do those things what is all the crying about? Because he doesn't march lock step with liberals in his appointments?
For future reference please use your comprehension skills when replying to a comment, your reply had nothing to do with what I said.
I will repeat - it is much easier to be a constant complainer that actually do the hard work of delivering for the people. Obama's whole agenda is progressive - apparently some on the left (like you) are too caught up in the sound of their own whining to notice.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
