It does not pay to be a waffler
President Obama has learnt the hard way just how painful it is to be a conciliator in politics. He wakes up today to find his health-care policy in tatters. A Senatorial election, in Massachusets, held to replace Ted Kennedy has elected a Republican. How did this happen in a State with 63% of its registered voters Democrats? Easy Obama, has waffled and pandered to anybody who can be bought and has also has no fixed policy positions. Whilst almost threequarters of Americans favoured the "public option" in his health care bill he nixed it. When his major backers wanted to carry out the campaign promise of labour reform he nixed it. Just what does this guy stand for? he can't even close Guantanamo Bay on time.
The only people pleased about this election win are the Republicans and the Progressives. That should tell him something - when he only has the mushy-middle (and they change positions a lot) he is in real trouble. Just remember the BurdReport warned you about this guy!
The only people pleased about this election win are the Republicans and the Progressives. That should tell him something - when he only has the mushy-middle (and they change positions a lot) he is in real trouble. Just remember the BurdReport warned you about this guy!
16 comments:
Obama lama ding dong ran for elation, not election. Progressives were typically duped.
The democrats have the same problem the liberals have in Canada. By trying to be all things to all people, they please nobody. They need to stop governing by poll and develop real principles on which to stand.
Until then, both parties will exist only as a less worse choice than the right, who just want to turn the clock back to the bad old days when white men were kings and the rest of us kept our mouths shut.
I have footsied with many of the political right. I haven't met a single one who resembles the racist description presented here.
For decades in Toronto, the most multicultural city in the world, I worked with various immigrant communities. I found first hand that the political right was reflective of that make-up.
It is a pity, as well as pathetic, that a few small town dinasoars continue to see things in such a racist and cartoonish manner. Some people need to get out more and see the colours.
Btw, kings/emperors/chiefs & such ilk existed in the bad old days in Africa and Asia, and continue to rule there today, and they ain't white-skinned. I learned these facts in high school.
I'm with you Deb!
Ben's glee at Obama's alleged failures misses the point. Nobody can rescue the USA, their evil empire is in its death throes, their people devoid of the human values needed to turn this mess around.
When selfishness and greed take over, when rugged individualism trumps civic society, the very foundation democracy was built on crumbles.
No politican can overcome this scenario, not even Obama.
It is definaitely not glee that I had in writing that post, I had hoped that he would have led not be led - it is predicted sadness
Obama sang assorted selected platitudes that attracted left-leaning voters. It was so easy to push over the left -- political stupidity at its most audacious.
Then realities came to the front. Reality is neither right nor left. In spite of the stupidity of right wingers and left wingers, the USA remains the most dynamic and creative empire the world has ever known. May it continue to be so and it will, because it has always contained more dissidents per capita than any other nation on Earth. By contrast, Canada contains more whiners per capita than anywhere on Earth
Irrespective of who's doing it or what they're doing, the speed with which a change in direction is accomplished is, in great part, dependent upon the degree of change and the scope of its involvement.
In this particular case of appetite for a 'change' by the US, Obama has few options as far as the 'rate' of change goes. To expect him (his leadership) to effect enormous and permanent change in a very short time is unrealistic and quite unfair. It can indeed be an effective strategy to let the people lead the change, while in effect, actually set the 'direction' of that change in a more subtle way. This could well be part of the Obama strategy - or not - we'll see at some point, won't we.
Obama's State of the Union address last night was pretty damn good though. He was forceful, perceptive, and seemed more than a little frustrated with the hysterical opposition that has dogged him every step of the way.
I especially liked it when he threatened the dinosaurs with his vow to use his executive veto in the future to get what he wants.
Very Bushian, very ballsy, and a signal that he is finished being Mr. Nice Guy.
Despite disappointment that Obama does not walk on water, he is doing a far better job than that crazy old goat McCain ever could.
"his vow to use his executive veto in the future to get what he wants." In your view, how does this reconcile with "bullying tactics" employed by other politicians to achieve their objectives? One person's will over a majority of elected representatives - seems an odd form of "democracy" that you applaud here, Deb.
The presidential veto is perfectly legal, written into the American constitution. It's just another tool in the tool box.
Considering the tactics of the Fox News sponsored tea party movement, Obama has to stand up for the side of reason here. He has tried his best to bring the opposition on side but they are sticking with their irrational positions and preventing progress on vital issues like health care reform.
Americans can't afford to wait much longer for this and the other changes he promised.
Sometimes, when co-operation and consensus fails, a dose of strong leadership is what's required. That's not bullying, that's reality.
"The presidential veto is perfectly legal, written into the American constitution. It's just another tool in the tool box." - Deb O
So what, again, was your problem with the "prorogation" of parliament? It too is a legal tool at the disposal of the powers of the day.
It can be argued that that also is a stronger degree of leadership, regardless of whether it is an agreeable one for some.
I get the sense that the proximity to policies of your liking, of the reasons behind leadership actions, and the particular individual doing them, are the only factors that you feel are of any importance in determining their validity. How else could your various comments on these matters to date be interpreted?
Manfred, as a flesh and blood human with the capacity to make judgements on events, I will stand on my right to do so.
The ability to think and make decisions is what differentiates us from computers. While it may lead to some inconsistency, it's one of the most important tools we have in a very complicated world.
I would also add that rules can be changed, they are not sacred and carry no moral weight by themselves. That comes from the humans who draft them, which is why they are always subject to change.
One of my points is that, while criticisms are not only important but vital to get to the heart of an issue, to be so they need to be fair and consistent in their message. If they are not consistent and fair, they will be seen as aimless whining without any potential for improving the situation. I think that holds true for whatever point of view is being proffered.
"The ability to think and make decisions is what differentiates us from computers."
Computers think and make decisions based on the criteria programmed into them. It would be more accurate to assert that creativity differentiates us from computers and then work from that premise.
Computers and the plethora of communications devices have dazzingly expedited creativity around the world at the speed of light. If any of us think the unprecedented progress of humanity between the years 1900-2000 was spectacular, it likely will be regarded as a century of technological training wheels compared to the progress to come in the 21st century.
While "progress" is an abused word, and seems to have, unfortunately, only a positive connotation in its most often used sense, I'm curious as to where that "progress" you speak of is actually directed and the cumulative effect on humanity it is likely to have.
Post a Comment