Skip to main content

View Diary: Only Obama can enact the sh!t GOP ideas that the public just rejected. Austerity now. Insanity later (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well then that's what you get (22+ / 0-)

    I didn't vote for Obama this time around. I prefer our Republican presidents to actually have Rs by their names. "Romney would have been worse." Only a fool believes that. Setting aside the fact that, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, Romney's actual record of governance in Mass. was way to the left of Obama's record as president, the truth is, as the title of this diary makes clear, a Romney, or John McCain, couldn't have gotten away with the shit Obama is getting away with now.

    Look at what happened just yesterday. The president's attorney general came out and said, yes, the president can order the assassination of American citizens on American soil, without due process.

    FACT: If Romney, John McCain, or any other Republican administration were to make that claim, this site, and the entire Democratic party would be up in arms right now demanding impeachment.

    But under Obama, it doesn't even register here. That is a coup far more damaging than anything a Romney presidency could have achieved. The utter neutralization of the American Left. That's what we're seeing now. Thanks to you.

    •  seriously? (7+ / 0-)
      "Romney would have been worse." Only a fool believes that.

      Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1162387/48457188

      by grrr on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 12:52:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look, Romney would have been worse in some respect (16+ / 0-)

        There's no doubt about that. But in the big picture, and especially long term, I believe that Obama has been more damaging than any Repub could have been.

        But to understand why I think this, you have to see the importance of a popular uprising. And at this point, that's pretty much all I care about. We can sit and obsess over the minutiae of this or that policy fight in Washington and throughout statehouses. But in the big scheme of things, regardless of whatever appearance of victory the Democrats may occasionally pull off,  the trajectory of our nation as a whole is toward ruin. Fracking, climate change, monetary corruption, decimation of constitutional rights, increased poverty and wealth concentration at the top, media consolidation, lawlessness, infrastructure decay, dismantling of the commonwealth etc etc etc, our country has been seized by a plutocratic force that is dead set on destroying what's left of civilization as we've known it.

        To fail to recognize that at this point is delusional.

        The only thing that has a chance of reversing all this is a popular, non violent uprising. And we had one brewing in 2008. In fact, Obama's campaign of hope you can believe in rode that wave to the White House. And then he killed. It got a second wind 2 years later with Occupy Wall Street. But Obama, along with the police forces of 30 major cities, killed that too.

        Look, I'm what they used to call a reform Democrat. I believe that before we can take the country back, as Howard Dean used to say, we have to first take our party back. And that's going to be painful, to say the least. And it's going to require sacrifices in the short term to win in the long term.

        And it's going to take loyal Democrats, like myself and others, to say, No more. You either work for the people, or you don't work at all.

        This is the ONLY way we can force our party to serve the interests of the people again instead of the Plutocracy. And, it is the ONLY way we will win the kind of majorities necessary to actually fix our country.

        Incidentally, it was this kind of line-in-the-sand politicsw that forces FDR andf the Democrats to implement the New Deal. The result? Democratic hegemony for the next 50 years.

        All this lesser evil bullshit has done is to facilitate the rightward shift in this country. It's silenced the voices of progressives, otherwise known as the smart people who've been right about everything all along. And it's allowed the Democrats to be as right wing as they want to be - lest the evil republicans win.

        This, in turn, has allowed the right wing to move even further to the point of radical insane.

        I'm tired of people telling progressives to STFU lest the Republicans win, while our own party turns into the Republicans in everything but name. We're being played. People need to wise up and regain their power be drawing a line in the sand. It will hurt in the short term. But it will pay off far more in the long term.

        •  No serious progressive would dispute this, but (0+ / 0-)

          what drives me insane is that we all say it when we've already lost.  Obama is history.  We need to be thinking about how we are going to take back the future. So what are we going to do differently in terms of serious and real political work to make it different going forward?  Because playing the same game in the same way is only going to get us to the same place in 4 years and 8 years and 12 years.

          The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

          by helfenburg on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:42:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yo James... look at the Democratic platforms from (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glitterscale, Angie in WA State

          1928 and 1932 and you can understand how FDR became powerful.

          The angst and anger at failed conservative policies had voice and it was brutal stuff politically. There was moral and political outrage expressed and codified into a platform. When 1929 and the Hoover years went down, they went down in a political tempest.

          We don't have that today. We've got nothing that says that failed conservative policies destroyed America. We've got nobody saying that Republicans are trying to sabotage the US to serve their corporate/ideological sponsors.

          An interesting thing about it is that the ideas were sometimes entirely off the rails as far as where we went, but the disgust and anger from the Democrats was quite palpable.

          1928 Democratic Party Platform


          http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/...
          On Republican Corruption:
          Unblushingly the Republican Party offers as its record agriculture prostrate, industry depressed, American shipping destroyed, workmen without employment; everywhere disgust and suspicion, and corruption unpunished and unafraid.

          Never in the entire history of the country has there occurred in any given period of time or, indeed, in all time put together, such a spectacle of sordid corruption and unabashed rascality as that which has characterized the administration of federal affairs under eight blighting years of Republican rule. Not the revels of reconstruction,В  nor all the compounded frauds succeeding that evil era, have approached in sheer audacity the shocking thieveries and startling depravities of officials high and low in the public service at Washington. From cabinet ministers, with their treasonable crimes, to the cheap vendors of official patronage, from the purchasers of seats in the United States Senate to the vulgar grafters upon alien trust funds, and upon the hospital resources of the disabled veterans of the World War; from the givers and receivers of stolen funds for Republican campaign purposes to the public men who sat by silently consenting and never revealing a fact or uttering a word in condemnation, the whole official organization under Republican rule has become saturated with dishonesty defiant of public opinion and actuated only by a partisan desire to perpetuate its control of the government.

          on Unemployment:
          Unemployment is present, widespread and increasing. Unemployment is almost as destructive to the happiness, comfort, and well-being of human beings as war. We expend vast sums of money to protect our people against the evils of war, but no governmental program is anticipated to prevent the awful suffering and economic losses of unemployment. It threatens the well-being of millions of our people and endangers the prosperity of the nation. We favor the adoption by the government, after a study of this subject, of a scientific plan whereby during periods of unemployment appropriations shall be made available for the construction of necessary public works and the lessening, as far as consistent with public interests, of government construction work when labor is generally and satisfactorily employed in private enterprise.

          Study should also be made of modern methods of industry and a constructive solution found to absorb and utilize the surplus human labor released by the increasing use of machinery.

          The 1932 Platform was much more measured, but built upon the groundwork done in 28 and the situation on the ground since 1929.

          1932 Democratic Party Platform


          http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/...

          Our 1928 Democratic Platform assigned blame for 1929 on the Republicans and gave voice to the anger and confusion over the start of the Great Depression.

          Great post here, James.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:12:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you 100 percent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc

            We need NOW to pull together and do an audit of our local, state and fed elected bodies. Who do we want to keep, who do we want to primary or oppose. We need a platform (which has been a considerable sticking point here and in Occupy) that we can rally around. I suggest that we have as part of it "a sustainable lifestyle" and a care for the planet and the people and species who populate it  civil rights for LGBT and reproductive rights for women."

            And I suggest that with the numbers here on this board it wouldn't be hard to do this.

            American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

            by glitterscale on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:25:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          I'm glad we agree that Romney would have been a worse president.

          From my perspective, I had hoped Pres Bush would galvanize the country - instead, once we got into a war, it became impossible to fight back - the populace was too frightened..Daddy Bush/Cheney weren't nice, but they would protect us...so after 8 years, we were left with a treasury drained from war profiteering, the economy ruined by bank fraud, and a supreme court packed with right wing corporatists.

          George W Bush won in 2004. The election should not have been close, let alone having him win...Where was the power of the left then?? Where was the extreme backlash?

          Romney would have gotten us into more war by now (Iran likely) and it is near impossible to stop the further looting of the country under the guise of  "top secret" appropriations and the focus on more terrorism alerts...

          I'm not an uncritical fan of Pres Obama, though I think he has done some good things...But I believe the longer we have less focus on fear of the "Enemy" through escalating wars, the more the populace can start thinking about better ways to run the country than running to Daddy to save them.

          The country can shift and process with nuance when it's not terrified of external threats...At some level, I suspect, right wingers know that, and thus focus on demonizing and externalizing.

          Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1162387/48457188

          by grrr on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 07:20:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        COBALT1928, k9disc

        romney win would have at least proven to republicans that their political party sucks just as bad  and is just as corrupt as the democratic party.

        "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." -James Madison

        by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 06:25:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He made a good argument as to why (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Patango, snoopydawg, duufus, k9disc

        You have done nothing to refute that argument. He also successfully defends his argument below. To summarize: Romney could not have gotten away with the things Obama has. We all would have been up in arms over it. With Obama, the majority of Democrats just keep their mouths shut and hope he is playing some game that, by this point, it is clear he is not playing.

        Grrr: 0, James Hepburn: 1.

    •  well, aren't you special (10+ / 0-)

      I'm happy to have voted for Obama, rather than against Romney.  Only a fool would believe Obama had zero positive accomplishments such that the election was only ever framed in the negative, and yes, Romney would be worse at mitigating the consequences of a Republican House.  Romney himself said we wouldn't have to worry about the sequester because he'd have already pushed through larger cuts.  Anyway, given a Congressional Democratic majority similar to the one in Boston, Obama'd be even left still.  And if Bush's attorney general had testified re drones with the same caveats and reservations as Holder, it'd have been just as unremarkable.  The left isn't neutralized by anything other than the refusal of some of its more narcissistic members to participate in the electoral process.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:11:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It goes like this: (10+ / 0-)

        The democrats would be much more likely to stand up to president Romney than president Obama, and therefore, Obama can be more dangerous to things like Social Security.

        There is definitely something to that argument.

        •  A very small smidgen (0+ / 0-)

          It assumes an adversarial relationship between Obama and either confessional Dems, social security, or both.  And I didn't see how in that scenario, congressional dems would be effective without the power to originate tax bills.  

          I believe Mitt Romney also said his first act would be to approve the keystone pipeline, and without any real insight on what Obama might ultimately do, that illustrates all the damage Romney would do just on his own.  Filibuster enough Court nominees, Romney nominates Goodwin Liu?

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 08:34:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Newsflash: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc, glitterscale

            Obama was calling for Social Security cuts back in 2006. The corporate media wasn't trumpeting that in the 2008 primaries - I wonder why?

            Could it be that Obama was the corporate media's candidate? His relationship to Social Security is certainly adversarial, and has been since before he became President.

            "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

            by Australian2 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:56:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you must not consume a lot of media (0+ / 0-)

              he's their candidate relative to whom?  Not Romney.  Maybe Kucinich.  Adversarial is a considerable overstatement based on isolated statements and parts of negotiation positions.  

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:54:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc, glitterscale

            Obama DOES have an adversarial relationship to SS. He keeps trying to cut it.

            And Congressional Dems could block things without having the power to originate bills.

            •  and yet it keeps not being cut (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              artmartin

              the interesting question is whether there's anything in return, scale and scope, etc.  If the goal were to cut benefits, full stop, it'd have happened. Remember when he expanded Medicaid, by the way?  

              We had this scenario in Bush's first term - Dem senate by a slim margin, and Republican President and House.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:50:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wait (0+ / 0-)

                So now the president can always get what he wants no matter what? By waving his magic wand or something?  

                I'll tell you how he usually ends up with what he wants, and that is persistence...which is what he's doing by the repeated attempts at cutting SS and Medicare.

        •  Really? They would have stood against Pres. Romney (0+ / 0-)

          as they did against Pres. Bush? You guys are certifiably INSANE!!!

    •  Hate to agree, but... (5+ / 0-)

      The assassination thing is really some shit.

      The freedumb - It burns!


      The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

      by No one gets out alive on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:25:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site