So, how ya'll doing? Enjoy your summer? Do anything exciting? I spent mine watching the awesomeness of our new President do things that grown ups do; bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of a genuine Depression, sign meaningful legislation into law, talk to the American people in polysyllabic words that he knew the definitions of, and generally cause the far-right wing of our glorious country to collectively lose their freakin' minds (see "birthers", "deathers", and teabaggers, oh my!).
Surprisingly, it isn't just the far-right wing who are unsatisfied with our newest President. It's progressives who are showing signs of frustration with Obama. It's been said many times before that the way to know if you're composing good policy is if it pisses off both the right and the left. Moderation and bipartisanship have, in recent years, been the goal of both policy makers and political pundits who cover the major happenings in D.C.. But moderation isn't why so many progressive activists worked their butts off to get Obama elected. We wanted change and in a big way.
I've argued elsewhere that Democratic ideals could be summarized into four basic pillars: environmental, legal, labor, and LGBT issues (technically the LGBT pillar is part of the legal one, but this particular community has such a influential and cash-rich lobby, that I've made it a stand-alone unit). And on each of these pillars, President Obama has failed in some ways significantly and in other ways spectacularly. Case in point:
On environmental issues, his failure to lobby harder for a stronger cap-and-trade bill angered many progressives who feel the final draft was nothing more than a compromise with Congressional leaders who do not grasp the seriousness and urgency of the matter. Yes, it is far better than anything they could have expected from a Republican-controlled Congress, but it doesn't address the issue on a level that will have any substantive impact on the climate change crisis, which was the goal of the legislation.
Legal analysts and progressives have been dismayed at Obama's insistence that the extrajudicial torture regime both Bush and Cheney authorized will likely go unpunished. Yes, Attorney General Eric Holder has opened an investigation of the incidents at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, but he appears to be focusing on the soldiers who carried out abuses rather than those who devised the system and those who provided legal cover for it. Additionally, Obama has been less than supportive over the whole process, stating time and time again that he wants to "move forward"; an odd statement for a Constitutional scholar who knows full well what happens when the crimes by members of the state go unpunished (they get repeated without impunity or fear of prosecution).
Labor organizations, like the AFL-CIO and SEIU, have expressed dismay that the President has largely avoided the ongoing argument over the Employee Free Choice Act, an essential piece of reform that unions have been working towards for years that would allow for unions to form easier. It's the one issue, next to health insurance reform, that unions are willing to play hardball on and one that will likely play a major role in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race, where the incumbent Democrat Arlen Specter is facing an uphill battle for re-election based in some part on his unwillingness to support it.
Then there is the LGBT issue, a movement that grew out of the legal community, but now has a spirit and power of its own. Obama's campaign for President always had a rocky relationship with this group, as he refused to endorse same-sex marriages (favoring civil unions instead), but opposed states efforts to make them unlawful. At one rally, he even had a pro-LGBT pastor speak back-to-back with an anti-gay one in an apparent effort to court the votes of both ends of the religious community. However, since his election, Obama has steadfastly refused to address the two issues that have mattered most to the community: the repeal of the Clinton-era "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and the Defense of Marriage Act, which legally classifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Obama has said time and time again that he disagrees strongly with both, but as yet has declined to do anything about it.
However, these disagreements are eclipsed by the intense debate disagreement over the battle to reform the U.S. health insurance industry and how it delivers services to people. Specifically the battle over a piece of the reform legislation called the public option. For those not following the debate, the public option is a kind of compromise between the current system and the European style of single-payer that many feel would represent true reform, but is seen as politically difficult to pass in the current climate.
Simply put, the public option would create an insurance plan that people not covered (traditionally the lower income class or those unemployed) could purchase at reduced rates. The plan would be paid for from insurance premiums and be deficit neutral. Progressive activists and Democrats are all for it, while conservative and moderate Democrats (known as Blue Dogs) are largely opposed to it. The conflict arises as the Blue Dogs keep coming up with creative ways to kill the idea, from demanding some measure of Republican support so that the legislation can be considered bipartisan, to allowing for "triggers" on when a public option could be created (the triggers proposals would place the financial burden so far in the distance so that a public option could never be activated), or the creation of co-ops, which have no track record of maintaining industry-wide cost controls in the same manner that a public option would.
Obama, while stating publicly that he supports the public option, has had his aides privately telling lawmakers that he's willing to negotiate on the issue and wouldn't be opposed to a final bill without it. For many progressives, that is the last straw. Creating a reform package that mandates everyone purchase exorbitantly expensive private health insurance plans, absent costs controls, will only increase the financial devastation that many families are already experiencing. A recent study indicated the number one reason why people are facing home foreclosure in the U.S. is the inability to pay their health care bills. How bad do you think it will get if people are forced by law to purchase health insurance they can't afford?
Now I'm not saying that Obama is necessarily a bad President, or that we'd be better off had McCain won, but he is not the man many progressive activists campaigned for. When they were told change was coming, they wanted transformational change, not nipping around the edges of policy or playing the triangulation game Clinton was so famous for.
However, unlike Clinton, Obama's team has little to fear in terms of a backlash that will reward the GOP in 2012. Their bench of potential Presidential contenders have been self-imploding so much in the last few months, they're likely to be left with either Mike Huckabee, a guy who couldn't even beat McCain, or Mitt Romney, a man most far-right Republicans can't tolerate. But what the President's campaign advisers are overlooking and should be fearing aren't the conservative Democrats, the political pundits, or the GOP. The two words that should keep them up at night are Ralph Nader. Nader, who campaigned as a Green party candidate against Gore and Bush in 2000, is largely blamed for splitting the Democratic vote, prompting Bush to the White House and into eight years of the most incompetent governmental leadership this country has seen in decades.
While Nader himself couldn't possibly hope to win a national election, it's what he represents that should cause a great deal of consternation among the Obama staff. Republicans could potentially regain the White House in 2012 if Obama finds himself under attack by either a credible progressive challenger during the primary which could tarnish his reputation enough to leave him vulnerable during the general election, or by an independent candidate who could force Obama into defending his left flank through both a primary and general election.
All the GOP would then need to do would be to run a moderate Republican (say someone like Michael Bloomberg who has spent close to $100 million of his own money in his bid for a 3rd term as New York's mayor) who might appeal to voters tired of watching Democrats fighting amongst themselves, and Obama could very well enter the club that few enjoy membership to, the One-Term Club.
User Comments / Add a Comment »
hey mardod does freelance politico mean you still live in your mom's basement wich coincidently is where that obama poster that you so enjoy jacking off too hangs while you sit at your little computer desk and write bs left wing propaganda hoping that your lord obama will read it someday and give you the privilege of sucking his nuts?
Added: 4 days ago by Daffybastard
seriously, is spelling that hard a concept to wrap your head around?
Added: 4 days ago by mardod
seriously one typo and that means i don't understand the concept of spelling f u c k me at least attack my grammer or lack there of you stupid twat but since my spelling is the only thing you commented on i must be spot on with my previous comment and by the way i think you're a douchebag.
Added: 3 days ago by Daffybastard
go over to the forum [link deleted] if you want to see more kool aid drinking drivel from the lefty loonies.
Added: 8 days ago by DCleary6
to hell with lgbt! obama is just another zionist puppet in a long line of presidents, democrat and republican. we need change all right: change back to being the powerful country we were before the baby boomers wrecked us.
Added: 8 days ago by alexisonfire04
zionist puppet? you are a retard, obama has a 4% approval rating in israel.
Added: 8 days ago by Hairy43
i am baffled by you liberals. i swear your brains are just wired differently. why don't we just have our paychecks go straight to the government. let's let them just decide how we should live our lives from the time we wake up to the time we go to bed. of course the government knows whats best for us. they are great at running things. look how great the post office works. how does nacy pelosi keep getting elected?
Added: 9 days ago by scoobym3
technically, you're right. there was a scientific study done not to long ago that hinted that conservatives and liberals process information differently. there is also a field of study, headed by george lakoff that postulates the same thing. as far as your question is concerned, i don;t believe that government is the answer to all problems. it's a tool that can be used to benefit people's lives or make them harder. it's not intrinsically evil. dealing with this economic crisis is certainly one of those problems that it's far better equipped to address than an individual person or state.
Added: 4 days ago by mardod
cheers to defranke, all this guy (and that twat pelosi) has done is spend, spend, spend, tax, and spend. typical liberal. trendy lefties and socialist african-americans cheer with their messiah ("mmm mmm mmm, barack hussein obama") while hard working folks with real american values just shake our heads. how did obama save us from a depression? if anything, we're spiraling towards it full speed! the mans economic policy seems to be "just throw money at it and see what happens".
to this day i cannot fathom why people continue to vote for liberal democrats. we never seem to learn. i hope i see the day where we throw these ass clowns out, force government back to size and keep it in check, and bring back the rugged conservative values that made america strong and the healthiest, wealthiest nation the world has ever known. until that day comes, i better get back to work - i guess i have a lot of people that need me to buy them food, houses, and probably now healthcare.
Added: 10 days ago by locrian
what you don't seem to understand is like the rule that matter can never be created or destroyed,the money will always be there,think of it this way,when we pay into healthcare,basicly the us is getting the money back,but were also getting the benefit of having healthy workers,and having the money out there stimulates the economy when people buy things,the more demand from buying things,the more jobs needed,the more jobs,the more people with money,the more people with money,the more money is spent,giving more people money and further stimulating the economy,it is what the economy is based on,spending
also the more people with jobs,the more people paying taxes into health care,so all in all you pay less in the long run and everyone gets a safety net
now the alternative of not having healthcare and spenind no money,the economy crashes because nobody is buying anything, the dollar becomes worthless,nobody can afford healthcare so whenever you get sick,even if its treatable,you die,everyone dies,native americans if they have survived will take back america,the end.
Added: 10 days ago by Werebear
To add a comment you must be logged in.
Please login using the MY KONTRABAND panel above or click here to register.