Let's Talk

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: dcwash
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:41 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

DS, I think the book on him is that he has accomplished this top legislative agenda even in the midst of a recession...two wars...and a Congress that is not always helpful. I think you might not like the way it looks or he might not be bring about the blissful change that many thought would come with his election but I think objective measure would say the man has been pretty productive.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/07/obamas-record

Quote:

The Truth About Obama's Record
� By Kevin Drum| Thu Jul. 15, 2010 10:43 AM PDT
I've got some good news and some bad news for you today:

A broad overhaul of the nation�s financial regulatory system, intended to address the causes of the 2008 economic crisis and rewrite the rules for a more complex � and mistrustful � era on Wall Street, cleared one last procedural hurdle in the Senate on Thursday as it headed for final Congressional approval later in the day.

....With the Senate poised to send the bill to President Obama for his signature, the White House was already planning a ceremony � sometime next week � to mark completion of another landmark piece of legislation, following the enactment of the historic health care bill in March and last year�s major economic stimulus program.

Here's the good news: this record of progressive accomplishment officially makes Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. And here's the bad news: this shoddy collection of centrist, watered down, corporatist sellout legislation was all it took to make Obama the most successful domestic Democratic president of the last 40 years. Take your pick.

In any case, I think this probably marks the end of Obama's major legislative agenda. I don't give Congress much chance of passing a climate bill, and after the midterms the Democratic majority will either be gone or significantly reduced, making large-scale legislation just about impossible.

Still, if you're a liberal, this is the best you've had it for a very long time. Whether this is cause for cheer or cause for discouragement is, I suspect, less a reflection on Obama than it is on America writ large.

_________________
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard
Many on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints,Aaron Brown

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: DarkStar
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:41 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

dcwash wrote:

Quote:

he is a weak leader of his party and the country and that he is not a man of his word.

He has no control of Democrats in Congress, as a group, of which he is the nominal leader.

His failure to lead for Health Care "Reform" is the reason the bill signed was such a mess. The fact that it passed had nothing to do with him and everything to do with Pelosi and Reid.

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: Mongo_Slade
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:16 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

I just read the Maureen Dowd piece. I essentially agree with both of you...but I'm not as eleoquent as either of you so I'll have to answer in my own way:

This chick is wrong. Dowd said this:

Quote:

The president shouldn�t give Sherrod her old job back. He should give her a new job: Director of Black Outreach. This White House needs one.

B*tch are you crazy? His approval rating with black folks is over 90%! If anything he needs an outreach director for white people BECAUSE THAT'S THE DEMOGRAPHIC HE'S LOSING. The ten percent of blacks who don't like him fall in three categories:

1) Radical black folks are angry that he's not more militant in helping other blacks.

2) Conservative blacks who have a fundamental dislike of liberalism and its wild spending.

3) Black Christians who disagree with him on moral issues (like abortion)

Other than that, most black folks are fully behind him. And they are smart enough to know that he has to be President for ALL Americans; not just black folks. They also realize that whites are wary of him favoring blacks so he CAN'T publicly advocate strongly for blacks. If he does that he will definately lose many white voters.

I wish I had more time to respond to this chick...what an arrogant [EDIT]
_________________
Dear God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things that I can and a great big bag of money.

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: dcwash
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:13 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

Quote:

he is a weak leader of his party and the country and that he is not a man of his word.

I just disagree. I think the country has proven to be much more difficult to lead but I am not sure who could leads us any better at this moment in time. We are reaping the results of years of failing to see that at some point in time we have to pay for what we want. I think Mr Obama is still playing chess while others are playing checkers...and if checkers becomes the game of choice for the nation as a whole then so be it.
_________________
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard
Many on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints,Aaron Brown

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: DarkStar
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:00 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

dcwash wrote:

I am still a big fan of the President and I trust him judgment for the most part..

The President has shown he is a weak leader of his party and the country and that he is not a man of his word. For the latter, that's common for politicians so when I state a politician is not a man of their word, it really is bad.

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: dcwash
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:38 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

Quote:

Imo, he has to be the President of the nation, before he's anything else.

Quote:

I like how he actually does things that either benefit most blacks, or represents something that most blacks are in favor of, without bringing a lot of attention to the "pro-black" nature of what he has done.

Quote:

think a majority of the commentators I encounter who clearly want the Prez to say more bold things on the topic of race, and design more policies and initiatives with clear cut race-based goals, (such as programs that specifically target black unemployment, as opposed to unemployment as a whole) are people for whom their job, is not to come up with sensible, effective means, to get things done in the country.

Quote:

Dc I do not take the majority of pundits or commentators seriously. I think most of them are business men and women, who first are interested in selling themselves as media personalities, and only a distant second are interested in figuring out sensible ways to solve our nation's problems

I am in total synch with all of the above. Mr Obama must be the President of the country and represent all of us. It is not just up to Mr Obama to tackle the issue of race it is the duty of whomever is sitting in the seat of power. (I long for the day when we can have Representatives that understand they represent the people�.not a certain kind of people). However he cannot shy away from facing the issue for fear of being perceived as favoring blacks over whites. In fact as you can see he is painted with that regardless of how careful he might be and those who want to accuse him of such will always bring up New Black Panthers and ACORN and anything else they can.
I�m not sure I can articulate a specific instance that he has failed on (except for his backtracking on the Gates issue) but my sense is that he make be bending over a little too far backwards to avoid a lot of the things you mentioned.

Great quote from Paul Krugman:

Quote:

Mr. Obama may not be the politician of our dreams, but his enemies are definitely the stuff of our nightmares.

Political Discussions :: RE: You LIE!!!!

Author: truthseeker
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:00 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 89

dc about that spectator article/argument. The tone of that thing is a trip man. Those people at the spectator are kinda crazy aren't they? Geez!

Does a black man in the Deep South in 1930s or 40s America, who is accused of a crime then killed by an angry white mob, really have to be hanged, in order for the term "lynch" to be used?

I don't understand why that kind of hair splitting is needed. Maybe most "lynchings" did involve a noose, but I'm not sure that I myself haven't referred to some raced based killings during the Jim Crow era, that didn't involve a hangman's noose, as lynchings.

Also, if somebody is killed for racist reasons, does it really matter by what means they were put to death? Would the murder of Emmett Till been more horrific, more senstational, if he had been hanged and left up on a rope?

Again. I think the Spectator is being really silly there. Making something out of nothing. But I imagine their readership is influenced by such nonsense. And that's why they write it.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

Political Discussions :: RE: You LIE!!!!

Author: truthseeker
Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:45 am (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 89

Okay DS. Whatever you say, man.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

Political Discussions :: RE: Will Charlie Rangel Survive?

Author: DarkStar
Subject: Re: Will Charlie Rangel Survive?
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:04 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 4

dcwash wrote:

Should he survive?

Hell. No.

Political Discussions :: RE: You LIE!!!!

Author: DarkStar
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:57 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 89

truthseeker wrote:

Also, thanks for knocking down Dark Star's silly attempt to inject himself into a two way disagreement you and I are having, and turn our disagreement in a more nasty, personal direction. As always, you were polite with him, but I'm sure you noticed the strangeness of what he tried to do above. But thanks for not falling for the bait. (smile)

I'll write when I write, when I write, I don't care who agrees or doesn't agree. What you wrote was condescending bile.

As for class, I have it, you don't.

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: truthseeker
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:33 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

Btw dc, this point I'm making about what I view as the nature of most (not all) pundits and media visible commentators, is the area where I often feel I have more divergent views with people on this message board, than on any other topic we discuss here.

In my process of attempting to follow and understand political events in our country, determining who amongst the people out there disseminating information, and expressing their point of view, are the most serious, sincere, objective and non-sensational/inflammatory opinion makers, is an EXTREMELY important exercise for me. I do not want to be entertained, by the people who most influence my political views. I'm not looking for people who are "edgy" or funny, I'm looking for people who are serious, thoughtful and mainly fair.

At times on this message board, I feel that many posters� favorite pundit, is determined by whoever it is who says things they immediately agree with. Or gives voice to some particular outrage, they share with that pundit. But I am totally against this trend, where the main thing people seem to want, is a pundit who seems to agree with them on everything, and who expresses those point of views in a funny or mocking way.

Dc I do not take the majority of pundits or commentators seriously. I think most of them are business men and women, who first are interested in selling themselves as media personalities, and only a distant second are interested in figuring out sensible ways to solve our nation's problems.

And this perspective of mine, without a doubt, goes into how I view a lot of the people, I have heard saying the Prez should be more outspoken on race. I�m not saying everybody who calls for this change in his approach is just a �jaw jacking� political entertainer, but I think the majority of such people in the media who are calling for this, are. Are people for whom figuring out what is responsible and actually doable, is not their main mission.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: truthseeker
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:10 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

I hear ya big bruh.

I understand how for people like those in the civil rights community, and also your average everyday black person for whom there is typically a high priority placed on certain symbolic racial issues (I think Shirley Sherrod became an example of such a symbolic racial issue), the Prez is very guilty of not being assertive enough, outspoken enough, on a variety of race related issues. But I think such people tend not to make an effort, to really think about and understand, what the Presidency is really all about.

Imo, he has to be the President of the nation, before he's anything else. As President, I think his priority #1, has to be the immediate, most pressing, often most threatening things, that affect the prosperity of the nation as a whole. Therefore for me, him focusing "like a laser beam" on things like our two ongoing wars, our "war on terrorism", our economy in the forms of jobs, the effective functioning of our capital markets etc.. is WAY more important than any "bully pulpit" type of thing he might say on the issue of race.

As another example, I have expressed on this message board before, how I like how he actually does things that either benefit most blacks, or represents something that most blacks are in favor of, without bringing a lot of attention to the "pro-black" nature of what he has done. And for me, I think health care reform is an example of this.

I believe if you or I conducted a scientific poll dc, that poll would show that the vast majority of black Americans, are strongly in favor of the changes in health insurance, that the recently enacted law brings into being. And if analysis was done on which demographic groups of Americans fall into the class of who most directly benefits from the law, that black Americans would be greatly represented in that number. (Btw, in addition to black Americans as a group, I think working class white Americans will also be a group that most benefits from the reform.)

But the Prez, nor anyone else in his Administration, ever did much trumpeting, of the "pro-black" nature of the health insurance reform. Of how the reform is likely to benefit a large number of black Americans, in a direct way. (FYI I am making no commentary at this time, about the budgetary long term impact of health care reform. I'm only discussing in this post, how I believe the provisions of the reform, are provisions that in a vacuum directly assist many black Americans.)

And I think not trumpeting such a thing, asserting these "pro-black" ramifications loudly and publicly, is wise on the President's part. That for him to racialize the reform, in a manner that would please civil rights types, and their intellectual allies in the media (a person like pundit Mark Lamont Hill for example), would only make the reform even more unpopular with moderate whites and independents, than it already is.

So in a nutshell dc, I think a majority of the commentators I encounter who clearly want the Prez to say more bold things on the topic of race, and design more policies and initiatives with clear cut race-based goals, (such as programs that specifically target black unemployment, as opposed to unemployment as a whole) are people for whom their job, is not to come up with sensible, effective means, to get things done in the country. Most of these commentators' job, is to voice a point of view. Or to lobby and advocate for certain segments of the society. Sometimes to sell newspapers and books or draw people to a particular website.

I don't think most of the people who want the President to be outspoken or aggressive on race, could themselves ever be elected to ANY national political office. And if we were to take that magic wand of yours dc, and make someone like Dowd, or Tavis Smiley, or Cornel West the President today, they wouldn't be able to get anything passed in Congress, that would help the black people they want to help.

Governing and jaw jacking, are two entirely different things. lol
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

Political Discussions :: RE: Will Charlie Rangel Survive?

Author: truthseeker
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:41 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 4

What you say makes a lot of sense to me. Rings as a true characterization, of what very often happens with a politician like Rangel.

Sounds to me like this is a trend you've paid a lot of attention to, for years. That this is a thing you are very much attuned to.
_________________
I'd rather be reasonable and wrong, than hysterical and right.

Political Discussions :: RE: Will Charlie Rangel Survive?

Author: dcwash
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:50 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 4

I respect him for his history and his service....but like a lot of pols (or anyone for that matter with longevity)...there is often a sense of entitlement and it is hard to get off the stage before it is too late. I think he time has come and he should bow out gracefully....and this has nothing to do with whether he can be re-elected or not....this has to do with has his ability to effectively serve been compromised and I think it has. So before this becomes a big circus he should decide it is time to spend more time with his family.
_________________
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard
Many on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints,Aaron Brown

Political Discussions :: RE: Divided Government is good....except when...

Author: dcwash
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:46 pm (GMT -6)
Topic Replies: 32

Quote:

Dc, how would you like to see the President handle racial issues differently?

With the exception of the Skip Gates affair (him making the comment he did about the Cambridge Police Dept.), I've been very pleased with how he has handled racial issues. I think him getting mired down in them, would only distract him from what I view as more attainable goals.

Not sure I know. You maybe right about the mix he has right now. I think I was reponding to the notion that others around him a sheepish and I would say to any extent that anyone is sheepish I think it is he (which is not a bad thing I guess) but I heard someone say that his transcending nature about most everything including race can sometimes be a little too "aloof" and that might be true. I am still a big fan of the President and I trust him judgment for the most part..
_________________
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Elbert Hubbard
Many on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints,Aaron Brown