Skip to main content

View Diary: Vote Against FDR in '44 (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

      •  This is why I recced. (58+ / 0-)

        I'm not a member of the "obamarox" crowd any more than I am of "obamasux" -- but people really need to understand, before they waste time and energy sowing division among people who mostly agree about where this country and world needs to go, that for better and definitely for worse, our current president is very much in line with past Democratic presidents.

        Is he an FDR? (On the more positive side, I mean.) Not yet, that's for sure. But if you bother to learn a little bit about past administrations you'll learn how that often many contradictory things will coexist in them. Right now, he reminds me most of JFK. To some of you that might seem to be heading into "rox" territory, but I consider Kennedy an overrated, though more positive than not, president. He certainly was no one's progressives by the standards of his time.

        I've said it a million times, but Obama should not be compared to activists or would-be-presidents, but actual presidents. As this example bears out, most of even the very best of them were guilty of things that create massive head explosions on all sides if the the 'net had existed in their day. Trust me, if RFK had been elected and there'd been a 'net, I can only imagine what kind of moaning there's be by about 1970 or so...

        My point is not that people shouldn't be very angry at many of the things that are happening in the administration. They absolutely should be. It's just very important to remember that you can fight the things that are wrong with an administration without sowing division to the point where, whether you mean to be or not, you are actually weakening our chances of beating the Republicans. It's a delicate balance at times, but one that absolutely needs to be struck.

        Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

        by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:14:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that MOST people on this site feel (22+ / 0-)

          exactly the same way, it's just that the whole "let's look at this in a balanced manner" approach doesn't create as much drama as the push/pull of the rox/sux groups.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:21:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well thought out comment. (51+ / 0-)

          And I generally agree.

          My general take, as it has been for as long as I have been blogging here (over 6 years now) is that the same thing infects this blog that has carried over from the Bush years: hyperbole and a lack of a sense of history.

          That's what drove my diary.  To see the recent Defense Act passed, which to me was a horrible disappointment, is one thing.  To call it the worst law ever passed? Really? In the history of the U.S.? Quite another.  Hence why the reminder...back during WWII, we actually DID round up US citizens en masse, and put them in camps.  And it was done by a Democratic President that many consider a progressive hero.

          But we act like we have no such history...that Jefferson didn't own slaves, that Jackson didn't massacre Native Americans, that Lincoln didn't suspend habeas corpus.  What happens NOW is the worst thing to EVER happen!

          So, the other diary easily teed it up, and I bit and hit it off the tee.  I'm disappointed in a hell of lot of things the President has done, but not to the point that my world is crushed, or that I'm going to sit on my hands.  As you say, he needs to be compared relative to other Presidents, and in that context, he's not doing anything all the different...or bad, for that matter.

          Cake or DEATH? Oh, I'll have cake, please.

          by wmtriallawyer on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:21:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            princesspat

            I do think that some of the things Obama has done or not done qualify as "bad." It seems that almost every president this century has done something which someone can credibly argue is an actual crime. I would certainly say this latest non-veto is a bad thing but, yeah, it's pretty mild when you compare it to imprisoning almost an entire ethnic group without charge or owning slaves (though that was legal and accepted practice at the time, just contrary to Jefferson's own ideals). Still, over time, it could turn out to be anything but mild, and that's why I agree that people should be mad about, I just wish some of them could be angry in a more mature, less emo way.

            Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

            by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:12:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I broadly agree... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maxschell

            but I still have a personal morale conviction that does not allow me to support anyone who is violating the constitution.

            I can at least do everything possible to shame representatives, regardless of party, who make such drastic power grabs.

            Also, I'm very much over the whole comparison between FDR and the Japanese-American internment camps and the potential of Obama War on Terror FEMA-Camps or out of country black op camps or whatever.

            There isn't a war going on! There is just a giant money-making military action! It isn't the same thing! I wish people would stop comparing apples and oranges.

            So. Sick. Of. Two-Party. Duopoly...

            “To raise the issue is not necessarily an expression of class warfare, as critics’ bromides would have it; it can be an expression of deep concern about the health of our democracy.” — The editorial board of the Austin American-Statesman

            by Marshall Getto on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:57:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You can't compare the present to... (0+ / 0-)

              World War II, I agree, but while the "War on Terror" will never end, our war on Al-Quaeda is, in fact, not nothing and not a mere figment of the military industrial complex's imagination, which is what you seem to be implying.

              It's sort of like a war and also sort of like a criminal action while not being exactly either, though I know some on both sides would like to say that it is precisely one thing or the other which, in my view is utterly simple-minded. That's one big reason why it's so problematic from a legal point of view -- we don't really have a framework to deal with it mapped out. Some use it as an excuse to try and institutionalize their own brutal and stupid neocon tendencies, while others in the anti-Obama left blogosphere use it as an all-purpose bat with which to bash American foreign policy without really taking the time to sort out what happens if we actually do what they're suggesting (often, by implication, precisely nothing).

              That being said, going back to WWII, there was zero evidence at the time that Japanese Americans were actually involved with any thing that would even begin to justify the internment camps. This wasn't just a case of people potentially and very dangerous being put in a play where they could be deprived of their rights somewhere down the road.

              This was thousands and thousands of undeniably completely innocent American citizens on American soil being deprived of their freedom and most basic rights in the most immediate and basic way possible. I grew up with the children of that generation and I know it wasn't nothing. Thought most Japanese-Americans tend to vote Democrat, few had much to nice to say about FDR. I was born 17 years after VE and VJ day, and the wounds were still pretty palpable by the time I got enough to notice that some of my friends parents had very different wartime memories than my own parents did. (My father would never admit it was wrong because, well, FDR was as perfect as humans got in his view and could do nothing wrong and besides, what about the Shinto religon! I guess people would call him an R-bot.)

              I don't know how you "get over" the comparison, very frankly. It's a reminder of what it really means to deprive people of their rights on a truly massive scale and nothing Obama has done begins to remotely compare to it and there is something going on that really is a threat, though not the "existential" one the idiot neocons love to blather about.

              Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

              by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:41:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Top Comment (5+ / 0-)

          Also describes how I feel.....

          Canadian amazed by and addicted to US politics.

          by Mikecan1978 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:11:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely not. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maxschell

          No postwar Democratic President would ever have conceived of establishing 9% unemployment as the New Normal.  

          Obama is a class warrior for the 1% on a level that Clinton would have been revulsed by.

          The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

          "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

          by Punditus Maximus on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:45:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  your comment is stupid enough to warrant this (12+ / 0-)

            reply, this president has done as much as he can to get jobs bill after jobs bill to congress, even when there was a democratic majority, but no..noone wanted to take the risk in Congress because they were worried about "too drastic a change" from the status quo.  But then we have idiot comments like yours that get peddled around with minimal understanding and people start running around like chicken little.  I'm sick of this shit.  

            If you want to criticize, fine.  But don't place bullshit statements on here with no factual or legitimate backing without understanding the proper context.  

            Learn that this president has been subjected to the worst congress in history.

            Learn that this president was left to do it alone like no other president.

            Learn that this president has not been afforded the proper respect, nor opportunity that other presidents have had or would have had in the past.

            learn that this president has been subjected to the worst kind of hyperbolic, and at times least informed constituents in modern history.

            Learn that Hatred of the person and not the policies is the reason why your comment deserves to placed on toilet paper and be used to wipe asses with.

            Look at the Man's record of what he has accomplished, WITH the opposition he has faced even within his own party and those who SEEM to think they're his base.  history will judge President Obama much like they judged FDR.  The man wasn't perfect, but gave a lot more than was credited for.. and he did it with less help.

            before writing idiotic comments like this again, gain some fucking perspective.

            •  When an Obama supporter curses at me, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              maxschell, emal

              and condescends to me, that's when I know beyond a doubt that I'm absolutely right.

              Only being called a "race traitor" by a conservative is a better indicator of being completely right about something.

              Obama didn't have to start talking about the deficit during 9% unemployment.  The Republicans didn't make him do that.  He did that because he thought it was really important to fire a bunch of productive people while unemployment was at 9%.  He did that because he thinks 9% unemployment is not particularly bad, so he's happy to make it worse.

              He is who he is.  I share your horror at that idea, but I'm not willing to retreat into a cave of denial just because I don't like Obama's record.

              The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

              "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

              by Punditus Maximus on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:34:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's when i know your comment is idiotic (7+ / 0-)

                President Obama didn't fire those people for one. Let's remember why the shift turned to the deficit.  Where were the democrats during the whole deficit debate?  Oh yeah, that's right, they were busy bitching on blogs about not getting particular ponies when Republicans were full on energized and took control of congress because we stayed home.

                Yeah, Obama did it all right?  Cut me a fucking break.  

                Additionally, the unemployment rate was on its way down during President Obama's first two years..i think it reached what? 8.1% or so.  

                What happened?  Oh yeah, republicans got elected to Congress and even created more road blocks to economic recovery, and sometimes with the help of the same democrats both in congress and blogs like this one who claim to champion for the greater good, but are willing to let their lesser brothers and sisters suffer because a particular bill "didn't do enough"

                Name me a fucking time when a bill was ever enough at the first go around.  Our own damn constitution wasn't enough for the majority of americans today because it didn't provide full rights to those not White and not Men.  

                So forgive me if I indeed choose to wipe my ass at your idiotic attempt at outrage.  Direct that shit inward and ask yourself what the real issues are with the president, because his record even as of right now can stand with the most recent good to great presidents of modern times.

                Oh, and I didn't call you a racist...I just called your thought process idiotic if you think that race isn't a reason for why the President has been afforded such a short leash to get shit done.  oh, and i believe he's accomplisehd 60+ percent of his campaign promises.

                I find it funny that people like you and Cenk seem to think you have the right to give out advice to the President, when you have the least possible comprehension of basic civics, context, or history.

                •  "Let's remember why the shift turned to the (0+ / 0-)

                  deficit"

                  Because Obama mentioned it in the SOTU.  

                  The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

                  "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

                  by Punditus Maximus on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:47:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Learn that this president saved the Republican... (5+ / 0-)

              ...Party from oblivion in just two years.

              Learn that this president took a huge mandate for change and just pissed it away.

              Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

              by expatjourno on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:37:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  learn that you too need a civics lesson (4+ / 0-)

                we elected a President, not a fucking dictator.  Learn that there are two other branches of government that help our democracy function.

                Learn that we never had 60 actual votes to get even those things "which you view as minimal" passed.

                Learn, that basic logic suggest that if we had tried to institute this "mandate" which lies deep within your bullshit fantasies that NOTHING, and i mean NOTHING, would have gotten passed because you refused to:

                Learn that we had blue dog democrats.
                Learn that this president has been the most filibustered President in modern times.

                Oh, and many and maybe including you refused to do you part and just sat idly by because you expected change to fall on your fucking lap instead of fighting for it.

                no my "friend" it is people like you who pissed it away in those two years because you decided not to counter the teabag loudmouths during the health care debate, instead..you were pounding on your keyboard with ALL CAPS!..yes, how big a difference it makes to pound loud on keyboard and be so cool on blogs when YOU and others like you were needed to shout down the crazy teabaggers and fight back against the media narrative.

                So like i said, you pissed on yourself..upside down mind you; so how does your own piss taste?

                •  After NDAA of FY 2012, he is dictator. (0+ / 0-)

                  He can now lock anyone, anywhere up indefinitely on his say-so.

                  Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library.

                  by maxschell on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 06:23:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  it will help your paranoia (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Larsstephens

                    if you actually read provisions of the bill and not parrot bullshit by chicken littles on TV, Glenn Greenwald, this blog, etc.  so fucking sad.

                    •  I read the bill. Did you? (0+ / 0-)

                      It specifically authorizes the Executive to indefinitely detain anyone anywhere who is determined to be "supporting" an "associated force".  

                      Now given that a dude was just convicted in Massachusetts for translating bin Laden, yes translating, I would say the bar there is pretty low.

                      Wake up.

                      Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library.

                      by maxschell on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 07:47:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  riight (0+ / 0-)

                           (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

                            (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

                            (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

                            (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

                            (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

                        how about YOU wake up and practice some actual comprehension.  As for the guy in Massachusetts, provide a link with some context and i'll be happy to read, but based on your comment, and lack of understanding of how this bill applies, i doubt it will add much to debunking your own paranoia

                        •  How 'bout some hermeneutics my friend? (0+ / 0-)

                          Let's read section (b)(2).  I assume you will agree that a person who "substantially supported...associated forces" is covered by this statute?

                          Now let's turn to section (e).  Do you have the memo on what the SCOTUS has decided about "existing law" on the detention of US citizens?  I assume you realize that the makeup of SCOTUS has changed since the Rumsfeld decisions?  And not for the better?

                          Now who is evincing a lack of understanding about how this law applies (yes Obama signed it while he vacationed in Hawaii)?

                          Oh and here is the link to the case in Massachusetts -- surprising you did not hear about it:

                          Man convicted for translating bin Laden

                          Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library.

                          by maxschell on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 11:20:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Learn that Obama sucked up to the right wing... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...and made them, stronger every single day he was in office, from having a homophobe goive the invocation at his inauguration to having a "beer summit" with a racist cop.

                  Learn that the president has a great deal of influence on the terms of the debate.

                  Learn that you need a basic lesson in real-world politics, my overly ardent Obama admirer.

                  No one has ever pissed away a mandate the way Obama did. No on has ever helped the opposing party regain power the way Obama did. No one has pissed all over his supporters the way Obama did.

                  Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

                  by expatjourno on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:05:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  hahaha (0+ / 0-)

                    yes, that's me pointing and laughing at your idiocy.  Really?  Come on, he had a homophone give the invocation yet got DADT repealed...yeah, ouch, that's a stinger right there.

                    The president has a great deal of debate when his constituents in his own party aren't bitching at him 24/7 like an incessant little child.

                    I would say more, but your first comment shows your ignorance towards basic understanding of politics or civics because you debunk your own argument.

                    Come one son!  This president has done more for LGBT rights than any other president and you're gonna come up with that bullshit.  Get the fuck outta here.

                    God i can't wait for history to show the true colors of your ilk; blinded by their own ignorance, shortsightedness, and lack of comprehension.

                    If you didn't understand the point behind the "beer summit" then you shouldn't even bother coming on here and commenting.

                    you're not ready to debate me on this, trust me.  I only debate with people above an 8th grade comprehension level.

            •  "The worst Congress in history" was put in (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TracieLynn, maxschell, emal

              office by Obama himself! Whining about not having 60 senators (he had "only" 59!) before his epochal defeat in 2010 is pathetic. The job of a president is to twist enough Congressional arms to get his shit through. Obama didn't even care enough about his own fucking health care bill to lead the fight for it!

              In early 2008, Obama was a very popular president and party leader in a serious crisis created by the opposition party. And he turned that into the worst off year defeat since 1922. What a putz!

              If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

              by LongTom on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:14:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  why don't you stop watching (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                qm1pooh, Larsstephens

                the west wing and actually learn how shit works in real life.  Twist arms? How? See..this is the problem.  You want optics instead of actual governance.  

                You want to see the president "act" tough when you and others like you are probably the same people that would sit on their asses and not defend him for doing so because, wait for it...nothing got passed.

                You mention a worst of year defeat, but you ignore that he got passed health reform that other presidents failed to do or even attempt in the past 100 yrs.  

                You forgot that he ended DADT and soon DOMA in which one of the fav pres' on here Clinton instituded.

                You ignore the multiple campaign promises he has achieved.

                You want a daddy to tell you what to do.  I elected a president to set the vision.  So far 60% of that vision has been met and based on the obstruction he has faced from congress and his own selfish, short minded constituents like you, that's a damn good job in my opinion.

                Why don't you go talk to the many democrats who refused to take on the tax issue before the recess in 2010.

                How bout you look at those congress critters who voted against funding the closing of Guantanamo.

                Those are just some reminders of how this president has been handcuffed by his own party, in addition to record breaking opposition from Republicans.

                So spare me your ill informed comment.  The worst congress in history was put in place by apathetic voters who chose to listen to "expert" pundits and get duped into not voting of faux outcries instead of participating in the actual governance of this country.

                get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.

                •  Only a fool blames the voters for the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  emal

                  loss of an election. The electorate is a mass that changes very little over the years, or even the centuries. Most people just don't pay very much attention, they never have and they never will, and it's absurd to expect them too. If you can't get their votes, do something else for a living. The same electorate that swept Obama into office turned on him less than two years later. That was his fault, not theirs.

                  And if you wanted a president to "set the vision" what vision is it, exactly, that he's provided? A hallucination of bipartisanship? That's Obama's biggest problem: he's a policy wonk who doesn't want to provide a vision.

                  The most important weapon a president has in getting his program through is his own popularity. Read LBJ's biography if you want to see how a president gets what he wants. Obama didn't just fail to use his popularity (when he had it), he systematically set about becoming LESS popular. He probably thinks of himself as too pure and noble to concern himself with maintaining his popularity. Too bad for everybody!

                  It was hardly too much to expect Obama to consolidate the political gains he and the Democrats had after the 2008 election. The Republicans were in complete disarray. Many thought the party might be finished. But Obama, fantasizing himself as Lincoln after the Civil War, picked them up, brushed them off, and handed them a club with which they beat his brains out in 2010.

                  If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                  by LongTom on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:47:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  lol..really (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Larsstephens

                    i beg to differ.  you blame the electorate for not being informed.  you blame the electorate for staying home then expecting something different..you blame the electorate for doing the same damn thing that got Bush Elected Both against Gore and against Perry.

                    The same types of people bitching now about imperfect democratic candidates are the same ones that saw Gore as too much like clinton..how did that turn out.

                    The same people that saw Kerry as weak..how did that turn out.

                    and now that President Obama didn't act on a fake ass mandate that never was, you are doing the exact same things again..but hiding it under the guise of "holding his feet to the fire" or some other bullshit reasoning.

                    If you believe what you said in regards to mass voters changing little over time, it was indeed TOO much to expect that President Obama himself would bring in massive changes when the same electorate has failed time and time again to support prior democratic candidates because they weren't perfect enough.

                    say what you want about the republicans, but at least they understand the end game.  

                    People like you see short term theatrics as more important than long term planning or investments.  if you trully believe that Obama has done little in Congress or having him in office has been a failure, I pray to God you're alive when the Supreme Court is packed in conservatives, DADT stays in effect, Deregulation becomes status quo, and social nets are no longer available.  We will see then how you feel about the lack of achievement...Get your mind right!

                    •  You're pretty much incoherent. I'm not (0+ / 0-)

                      sure what your point is. Mine is that I expect the leader of my party to fight and win. If we lose, at least we fought. I'm not a purist at all. I want a party leader and president who wins elections. Obama has won one and utterly blown one.

                      As for your comments about the electorate, it's you, not I, who "blames" them for the 2010 defeat. I merely accept them for what they are. A politico complaining about the voters' inattention or ignorance is like a baseball pitcher complaining that home plate is too far away. It's the same distance for the other team. And it's the same electorate for the Republicans.

                      As for Obama's "fake ass mandate", there is no doubt Obama, who won the 2008 election handily, who was the first Democrat to get more than 50% of the vote in a generation, and whose approval rating was in the 70s shortly after he took office, failed utterly to capitalize on his popularity, or to protect it, and also failed to lay the blame for the economic crisis where it belonged: on the Republican party.

                      Basically, Obama has failed to lead. Christ, even Bush, with his "loss" to Gore and his narrow win over Kerry, claimed a mandate to lead, and boldly tried to enact his party's loathesome programs. Obama has no taste for leadership.

                      If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                      by LongTom on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 07:59:26 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  apparently (0+ / 0-)

                        you know shit about the democratic party...Mandate my ass.  Even before the President was sworn in, you had emo's griping about every little act the president did.  Shit, the guy probably couldn't take a piss without some criticism.

                        Your party doesn't fight, it complains and complains until shit hits the fan and by that time it's too late.  

                        History of the last 20 years have shown this.  The president didn't lose the 2010 elections, your congress critters did because they ran against their own platform.

                        Additionally, even with 70% approval rating, congress had approvals in the 50's at best.  No matter your president's ratings, the mandate starts and ends at Congress.  

                        The problem I have with you and others like you is you want someone to lead your way or nothing at all.  70+% of democrats have approved of the president's leadership even with emo's griping and bitching all over the place.

                        So what does that make those 70%+ that approve of his leadership, are we all suckers because the remainder wants to continue the bitching and complaining that has done little to advance any democratic cause?

                        i'm good on that.  You stay on here and complain; i'll join the remaining democrats who actually understands how politics work

                        •  If there's no fight in the leader, there's not (0+ / 0-)

                          going to be much in the party. And the off year election is ALWAYS a referendum on the president, particularly a newly elected president.

                          Since this diary started out comparing FDR and Obama, let's not forget that in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929, Dems made huge gains in the off year election of 1930 (the referendum on Hoover!); they made more huge gains in 1932 when FDR won his first term; and amazingly, they gained even more seats in both the House and Senate in 1934, under FDR's leadership, even though the Depression was still brutal. By 1935, Dems outnumbered Republicans 3 to 1 in both houses of Congress.

                          FDR offered hope and leadership. The average American felt they had a champion in the White House. Obama just doesn't recognize the importance of that.

                          Anyway, at some point people get tired of making excuses for failure. That's where I am. Obama had huge advantages in 2009. As in 1933, people were scared and desperate and ready for someone to show them a path to a better future. People were ready to hear, "Yes, things are really fucked up, but we will get past it to a better future, and here's how!" The political opportunity was huge. And he blew it.

                          If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

                          by LongTom on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 04:39:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  "only a fool blames the voters for the loss of an (0+ / 0-)

                    election..."

                    Last I checked, our government is semi-elected by the citizens. At least 2/3rds of it.

                    Thank you to jayden, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Aji and everyone in the Daily Kos community involved in gifting my subscription and gifting others!

                    by Nulwee on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 06:07:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  And which of the post-war Democratic presidents (9+ / 0-)

            reversed DADT and passed health care?

            As noted earlier, if you continue to ignore history and contrast this president with liberal activists instead of other presidents, then he will always come up lacking. Every Democratic president would fail that litmus test. They are not activists and to expect them to act as such is to simply invite disappointment.

            Sarah Palin is a fictitious character created by the media to close the charisma gap between Obama and McCain in the summer of 08.

            by smartdemmg on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:03:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Every Democratic President (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              itsbenj

              would try to increase unemployment during the worst recession in postwar US history by firing thousands of productive Federal workers?

              I gotta tell ya, nobody is more down on Americans or Democrats than Obama supporters.

              The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

              "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

              by Punditus Maximus on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:35:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not a fan of the other comment, but... (6+ / 0-)

            Do you really think he wants 9% unemployment? If we agree about nothing else, I would think he would agree he'd like to be re-elected by a large margin and I think arguing that he's more or a neoliberal or what have you than Clinton is a huge, huge motherf##$ of a stretch.

            Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

            by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:07:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think he's indifferent. (0+ / 0-)

              That's why he turned to the deficit.  He thinks it's basically fine, the New Normal.  Nothing which requires his attention.

              The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

              "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." -- anonymous GOP focus group member on Rick Perry

              by Punditus Maximus on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:50:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Wait a minute... (16+ / 0-)

      Are you telling me that the President is... (gasp) Human??

      That no President is or has ever been perfect??

      Damn. I'm shattered.

      Next you'll try to tell me that no President has ever been able to satisfy his entire base, either.

      Not buying it! That perfect person exists, damn it! And I'll just keep changing my vote until I find that perfect person. And you can't make me vote for the person that will look  out for my best interests, because I don't care about those! I care about PERFECTION!

      So THERE!

      /snark

      "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

      by Diogenes2008 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:48:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Same with everybody. Even Ted Williams (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justmy2

      struck out some times. The comparison of Obama with FDR is odious. Obama is a political incompetent who turned the biggest political advantage of any new president since FDR into the worst midterm defeat of any new president since 1922. Politically, he's a doofus, at best.

      If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

      by LongTom on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:08:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  some nice Wisconsin cheese (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Thomasina, Nulwee

        to go with that whine?

        Here in the Badger State, we're focused on recalling an insane governor.  After that's over, we understand that re-electing President Obama is the next most important thing to get involved in.
        That's what Russ Feingold said, after all.  That's what anyone who cares at even a shot at overturning Citizens United would say.  That's what anyone who gives a crap about tens of millions of people getting health insurance would say.  That's what anyone who gives a damn about the unemployed would say.

        But those more concerned with their image of purity, and their selfish desire to treat voting as an imaginary thought exercise without consequences in the real world might say something similar to what you just said

        •  Oh, give me a break! I was responding (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justmy2

          to an intellectually dishonest diary suggesting that disapproving of Obama was the same as opposing the reelection of FDR to a third term.

          Have you thought about WHY you have to be busting your ass to get an idiot governor removed? You don't think Obama's political incompetence had anything to do with putting this guy into office in the first place?

          I was involved in getting Obama elected, in three states. And I deeply resent having to go out there and fight a last ditch battle to prevent another electoral disaster, all because Obama was too high-minded to care about maintaining his own popularity. He's like Ferdinand the Bull, he's got all the tools, but doesn't want to fight.

          If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

          by LongTom on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:58:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you give Obama way too much credit (0+ / 0-)

            for an election the Koch brothers spent millions on manipulating in a mid-term year.

            Thank you to jayden, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Aji and everyone in the Daily Kos community involved in gifting my subscription and gifting others!

            by Nulwee on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 06:09:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  i don't blame the President for Scott Walker (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps you should stop letting the Republicans off so easy, or people might start to wonder what you're really about

            •  "Letting the Republicans off so easy?!" (0+ / 0-)

              I happen to believe very deeply that the Republican Party is the greatest single threat to American peace, welfare, and security. And it's Obama's most important job to lead the Democratic party to electoral victory. He failed miserably in 2010. That's why Walker was elected, and no other reason.

              If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

              by LongTom on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:04:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  thanks for your concern (0+ / 0-)

                if you seriously think that Walker was only elected because of Obama, then, well, you're not smart OR good for the Democratic Party's electoral success.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site