At least in the states though, they have a clear definition as to what the 2 parties are (even if they act the same once in power) Here in the UK i have no idea what the diference between the Labour and the Tories is anymore.
RufRTs Obama Windup
- Thread starter RufRT
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
Well ive yet to see how Obama is a step-up ahead of Bush in terms of foreign policy. Same shit, different arsehole.
As i said previously when they're in power, they're the same as they always have been.
What precisely were you expecting of him ? To push forward a Kurdish state ? Recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate groups and cut off all funding to Israel ?
Ever wondered why that's the case ?
It's partly because the country's quite right wing and war-loving, partly because the government has been almost completely captured by corporations.
In what way does that address Obama's actions ?
Does the President of the USA actually have as much power as is made out? Seems like the system compromises nearly every decision other than pulling the trigger on somewhere.
As he has no legislative right-of-initative or formal ties to Congress no he isn't. Congress was always supposed to be the most powerful branch of their federal government and once you get beneath media and public attention it still is really. Before Roosevelt and especially in the late nineteenth century the president wasn't much more than a figurehead, it totally depends on the qualities of the President of the day regarding how powerful they are as the constitution doesn't really give it to them.
Off the top of my head... not that I blame Obama specifically for all this, rather than the Democratic Party...
Public option - Obama came to a deal with the insurance and pharma firms - who happen to be massive donors to the Democrats - at the beginning of the year. The bill that looks like passing, as I'm sure you know, will force millions of people to take insurance, without either the public option or price controls to keep them honest.
Bailout - the big banks (which a senator recently admitted own the legislature) received billions while managing to avoid being regulated in any but the most watered down way.
Cap-and-Trade - The Waxman-Markey bill was massively watered down at the last minute, giving permits to the energy producers including a reported $150bn+ to the coal industry, the worst polluter.
Greenwald is good today on the Democrats as a corporatist party, as they were under Clinton and as they bequeathed to us in Blairism.
He's not all-powerful, but there's also this myth abroad that Obama has this really liberal agenda, but is hamstrung by the Republicans and the right of his party, the "Blue Dogs". In fact, his actions suggest that politically there's no space between him and the Blue Dogs.
This is shown not only by the centrism/right-of-centrism of most of his policies - Afghanistan escalation, massive corporate giveaways in the bailout, cap-and-trade bill and healthcare bill, marriage equality, protecting government employees suspected of torture, denial of due process to suspected terrorists etc. - but by the manner of the way he uses the power he does have to influence the Congress. Witness how Rahm Emanuel apparently bullies freshman Democrats who advocate a liberal line on war escalation, while protecting Blue Dogs who are obstructing what Obama had claimed was his goal - a robust public option in health insurance.
The problem is a compound of elitism, under-educated/apathetic/disillusioned public, corporate influence, institutionalized bureaucracy, fuzzy morals in the post-Christian age and all the other things we all instinctively know to be problematic but are so ingrained in our daily lives that there's little to do about it beyond endlessly entertaining that vague sense of a need of a major overhaul.
But to answer your question, I think it boils down to misplaced notions of risk vs. reward, particularly in a time when we as a race should be thinking about lateral rather than vertical expansion. We've done so well in the past 50 years on learning how to create epicenters of wealth, next logical step is how to learn to circulate it properly, and you don't need to be Socialist to do that. But instead we cling to our 'glorious' past and current achievements because they've provided us with all these visible - but ultimately fleeting - trappings of success. Obama just happens to be President during this period where people are starved for meaning, extremely disillusioned with hyper-capitalism yet dependent on it not only for their income but for its informing of their daily lives.
Incidentally, this is also where the conspiracy theorists go wrong. They assume that because the military-industrial complex is the only thing that seems to work, that this is because of some nefarious intentional design, when really it's because no one's mobilizing/marshaling any other kind of coordinated effort.
Human beings have an innate need to benchmark the progression of their lives towards mortality against some tangible 'progress'. In the absence of spiritual, technological, medicinal, artistic, or any other kind of advancement, if brute force is the only highly 'rewarding' placebo within grasp, it's what we'll settle for.
Interesting post.
There's actually another possible explanation for this, and that is that Obama really did believe all the things he espoused during his campaign, only to get elected and find out that everyone is actually on their own side, and even the people in his party only wanted to ride the wave of his success to maybe push through some front-burner projects of their own, leaving him not only to drift in the wasteland of deal-making, but also to deal with persuasive military-type folk who will terrify him with scenarios of "Look, if you don't do this, you won't get the stuff you want done either."
Basically like the idealistic rookie cop who finds out that law enforcement is a lot more complicated than catching bad guys.
Do I actually believe he was that naive about the system in DC? I don't know. But these days I find myself thinking he might have been.
I don't see why it matters, really - the end result's the same. But from what I hear Chicago's political culture doesn't tend to spit out ingénues as its winners.
Chicago's political culture certainly, but he was on the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years which I'm had to believe is quite strongly conservative in outlook.
Because the only real concern of a modern president is the economy. There is no truly great enemy for them to fight anymore. A lot of The USA's leap forwards culturally and scientifically was fueled by the simple premise of getting one over the Soviets in the cold war. The last president that had to deal with an economic problem which was a lot worse was FDR. This current financial crisis in comparison is merely a blip ( it could get worse). Ride on waves of fear to get elected, (change, reform new ways etc) then just do exactly the same job as the last guy. Keeping the financial backers happy. Look at the amount of money Obama had for his election campaign. All supposedly donated. All favours owed to somebody in his policy making. Tell the masses one thing, keep the money flowing in the right direction in the other. What gets me is that the West really does need a major shake up. Restructing that in the short term won't be to everyones liking but in the long term does one thing. Gives us something to sell to the Chinese as all the money is going to them and that will criple us in the future. Time to create the new technologies for energy, infrastructure and manufacturing to help. Only the states can do this. As for us Brits, were screwed.
Its rather amusing how he is associated with the old Chicago politics everytime someone disagrees with his policies. McCain tried it in desperation after it was too late last year.
I didn't find any meat in the Greenwald article. He makes his case in his piece and then links to a series of other articles by himself, the NY Times, and Rolling Stone. Its basically a network of liberal journalists who are sulking about Obama not pursuing an exclusively liberal agenda, while completely ignoring the realities that he faces as President.
Regarding the Public Option: The White House brought everyone to the table during the initial round of talks, including the insurance industry. That wouldn't be unprecedented. Nor would it be unprecedented for industry to contribute to either political party within legal parameters. The Republicans, the kings of corporate deregulation, get comparable fund raising contributions. Therefore going off on some tangent by wrongly labeling Obama as being conservative or in the pockets of corporate donors is little more than political grandstanding by grumpy quasi-socialists in the Democratic party who deluded themselves into believing Obama was going to stop all wars, legalize drugs, and allow Government to take over the corporate world.
Reality isn't discriminatory. Obama is a liberal - perhaps not by the standard of European socialists, but to the average citizen in the country that elected him he falls to the left of center. He has been forced to make deals with entities who don't share his agenda on health care, climate change, and even Afghanistan. That's the reality of politics. You make concessions to move your agenda forward with the knowledge that parts of it may need to be jettisoned along the way in order to keep its core components intact. That's what he's done in his 11 months.
Ignore the Kurdish state, even I see that as not a realistic target within the near future.
However I (along with many others) was hoping Obama would be a lot more diplomatic when it comes to foreign policy. Instead he's carried on his predecessor's torch by simply pre-determining that everything Israel does = good, and anyone who opposes them = bad, to put it layman's terms.
He continues to support Israel despite them occupying both Lebanon and Syria and while it refuses to declare its borders...already a few resolutions broken there; as well as supporting Israel's illegal settlement expansion in the West bank. He's also continued Bush's policy of isolating Iran and certain Latin American nations.
Here's his AIPAC speech, Bush in disguise, notice how he completely ignores the Palestinian question:
What a fecking tool, he's just saying what the pro-Zionist lobby wish to hear.
Well buddy, i'm afraid you have no one other than yourself to blame on that one. His views on Israel are completely in line with the electorate who voted him into office.
excellent post Raoul.
Obama can be frustratingly pragmatic. I don't like this HCR bill. But realistically, we could never have passed the bill, all liberals would have wanted. Now that we have got the foot in the door, we need to chip away at the Health Insurance companies stranglehold until we eventually get medicare-for-all....or single payer.
Just like Social Security and Medicare, all the brainless rightwingers who are against it will Want it.
Oh I concur, hence why Ive given up any sort of progressive hope towards the US
I think the progressive stuff will come, but not at pace that some in the middle east may have expected. The first step in that direction comes with lowering the antagonistic rhetoric, which in my view, his Cairo speech accomplished, as did his message to the Iranian people.
I'd have to agree with that.
Rome wasn't built in a day. Easier to destroy rather than create and all that...
Pardon the overused cliches but they have some merit.
after 8 years of the murderers Bush and Cheney, people are impatient, that's all.
Everything he said in Cairo was reversed in that AIPAC speech, he's a master of deception it seems.
Not in the slightest. Perhaps you misinterpreted good will towards the Muslim world with a blanket capitulation to terrorism, in which case the error was yours.
RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama: We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like "Monopoly Money"
The audacity of hypocrisy....unreal. Barry O lectures the country on "spending tax dollars like monopoly money".....well here's a suggestion numbnuts, STOP DOING IT !
click on the comments, makes for some interesting feedback on Barry O
The audacity of hypocrisy....unreal. Barry O lectures the country on "spending tax dollars like monopoly money".....well here's a suggestion numbnuts, STOP DOING IT !
click on the comments, makes for some interesting feedback on Barry O
Why don't you read the 20 posts above yours to see how to move a discussion along? Your Beck-style spewing is really boring now. Don't bother replying...I'm not interested.
But you are interested, thats why you quoted me....as far as your idea of "how to move a discussion along", thanks for the laugh.
yeah, obviously the insurance companies are quaking in their boots at the thought of this "foot in the door"...thats why every health insurance stock had strong gains today. This bill is a weak political talking point for Barry O, albeit an expensive one.
Do you honestly think the Iranians or Israelis give a feck what Barry O thinks ?
They know he is weak, each will do whatever is in their best interests without any consideration for this administration. What concessions did reaching out to Iran get ? The audacity of hope was just that...unfortunately, the reality on the ground takes a little bit more than that.
The Ego has landed...
Yo Ruf - I asked you a question earlier.
Not true and a pointless argument Woody. No republican president would advance these ridiculous trillion dollar spending policies that are driving the country further towards financial ruin. My problem is the policies advocated, not the man (I don't know him personally).
I happen to think there were very good democratic presidents in history and I don't discount voting for a democratic presidential candidate in the future.
My issue with Obama is weak policy, ridiculous overspending that our children will have to deal with. I always believed the health care reform being advanced was for political capital (aka re-election) foremost, and the watered down pass-at-all-costs-with-minimal-debate legislation is proof of that.
I believe in individual freedoms and minimal governmental intrusion in daily life. My distinct lack of affinity towards Obama is because his policies are the polar opposite of such.
Hopefully that answers your question which was innocently missed in a sea of leftist drivel
In that case I'm sure you won't mind being critical of Bush's spending via the 2008 bailout and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, all of which were initiated on the heels of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Republicans can no longer claim to be Goldwater conservatives.
The 2008 Bailout averted a worldwide financial meltdown...both sides agree on that. On top of that, firms are beginning to pay back billions of dollars of TARP money. I'd say it was well conceived and managed.
Contrast that with the pork ladened stimulus package that was initially going to create 3 million jobs, then 2million, then a million jobs saved...until finally it was all labelled a "jobless recovery"
As far as Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama continues Bush policy in both theaters, so there's no real contrast there.
Those wealthiest americans still pay a disproportionate amount of taxes collected, even more so now that the short lived socialist experiment is under way. Enjoy it while you can, it will take another Reagan to put the country back on track (and unfortunately for the democrats, it will occur with a vengeance at the polls when it happens)
a not surprisingly simpleton view from a repug. The stock went up because more people will be insured. a war is won with many battles. And no battle is won without casualties.
This is a lot better than what we have now, which all those God loving lip service Kristians really want to maintain.
The freeloading inbreds, the core of your party will love this like they do social security and medicare, though due to a combination of their natural stupidity and lack of education or I should say inability to be educated, they now drink the FOX kool-aid.
- Status