Tuesday, August 2, 2011

help!!

QUICK --
I am in the throes of a new evaluation of our President, and need some rapid assistance in maintaining my loyalty to him.

Can you tell me how it can be construed that in this Debt Ceiling "crisis" Obama did not sell out the Progressives?

P.S. I'm serious.

13 comments:

Dashmann said...

Obama is still the best our side has. He put the "Big 3" on the table, but never seriously actually threatened them.
But I do think Obama is weak -- I expected much more of him.
The mystery is when he is re-elected, will he become a lame duck progressive tiger, not caring about the next election, or will he go the other way, selling out those of us progressives who blindly have supported him throughout his Presidency ?????
What is the real Obama ????

Sparty said...

I'm afraid, Dashmann, what you see is what you get. This is a man whose life experience has been built on accomodation, "getting along."

Dashmann said...

Government spending of the New Deal provided some recovery and then WW2 government spending brought prosperity. This was after Hoover cut government spending during a recession and sent the country into the Depression. Now , again, we are hell-bent to cut government spending during a recession. Why should we expect any different result than in 1929 ?
Obama can deal with this only if we turn the houses to Democratic in 2012 ---and then can he or will "Turd Blossom" Karl Rove continue to outsmart the Democrats and Obama, no matter what ???

Bud said...

What if there were 30 safe Democratic districts in the country with conservative "Democrats" -- with tons of money behind them -- running against Progressive Democrats? Then how much difference does it make who elected how many from which party?

Bill said...

The interesting thing is that actually nothing was accomlished other than the debt ceiling was raised. As has been demonstrated, long term (10 year) projected spending cuts are mostly not realized. Governments change every two years. In addition the enitire crisis of deadlock will once again be realized when the super committee convenes.

The reality is that Obama must appease as the re-election is a must if the full monetization of the presidency is to be realized. I will take any bet that Obama's net worth will be in excess of $100,000,000.00 thirteen years from now.

Bud said...

So, you guys, what you're saying is that right now, we don't see any particular reason to be loyal to the Pres.

Right?

Sparty said...

Not my reading of what Dashmann or I said - Disappointed, not expecting much, but once again, what's the alternative? If Obama disappoints, the people on the other side are frightening.

Bud said...

To everyone:
Is there someone who, if he or she ran for President in the primaries against Obama, you would be prepared to vote for?

Bill said...

Good luck on that quest.

Dashmann said...

As the Kennedys would have said, I ( uh ) believe we are ( uh ) going to have to support Obammer in
( uh ) 2012 because he is the Democrats only hope.

Question --- is Obammer really a true Democrat and does he have the guts to follow through with the peoples agenda when he isn't facing re-election ???????

Tdec31 said...

Perhaps I'm being particularly optimistic on this one--- but I think Obama is playing the game this first term. When he's re-elected, I'm thinking all bets are off, and he'll set forth an agenda that will completely piss off the GOP and perhaps even give the Dems a backbone. He's too smart, and too savvy a President to not play in the middle. In Washington, he's a radical thinker when it comes to social policy-- and I'm looking forward to seeing the outcomes.
I don't think it's a matter of whether or not to stand behind him, it's a matter of being loud enough in telling him to go ahead and do what he/we want(s).

Alice said...

Well said, TDec31. I agree. I think he's dumb like a fox.

scot s w said...

What bothers me is that he hasn't focused enough on jobs. There's lots of hay to make there. He says he's focused on jobs, but you'd be hard-pressed to produce much evidence of actual steps taken. Yet he allowed the Republicans to frame the debate as a "debt crisis." Having allowed them to set the playing field, the best he could hope for was a draw, and he didn't get it.