Skip to main content

Executive Order 9066 is a crime against our constitution. It allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial. It is the worst law ever handed down by a President and it was done with nary a peep of opposition. I'm positive that a huge percentage of the population is not even aware of it, partly because the establishment media didn't even bother covering it, and partly because most people don't give a sh*t about Japanese-Americans.

But it appeared for a while that maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court would stand up and end the law.  Then that bastard FDR packed the Court and they went ahead and upheld the law because they wanted FDR to have even more executive power, not less. This president has been a disaster for civil liberties. But if that's not bad enough, his New Deal sucks too.

We should have listened to Carter Glass, he of Glass-Steagal fame.  Or even better, Champion of the Working People, John Lewis, who had the good sense to support Willkie four years ago.  They knew the New Deal was a fraud. They knew it didn't go far enough.  Bad enough we have a President on steriods that can shred the Constitution at will because we are at war...but his so-called economic social safety net? Feh.  What good will it be after the war, when the military-industrial complex has its claws fully into the fabric of our nation?

So, I don't know about you, but I think it's high time we send a message to the guy in the White House that we demand a more progressive President.  I know the guys on the other side are bad (seriously, Thomas Dewey? How can he possibly stand up to FDR's socio-economic policies, after giving a thumbs up to the New Deal? And Taft, that loony non-interventionist? We'd all be speaking German by now if he were in charge.)  But it's time we sent a message, that we got you here and we can take you out.

We voted for change, dammit.  And FDR is nothing but a disappointment.

Poll

You voting for FDR this time around?

69%215 votes
16%51 votes
14%44 votes

| 311 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (202+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TFinSF, Lost and Found, synth, allensl, angry marmot, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, RLMiller, We Won, kirbybruno, rkelley25, BoiseBlue, Setsuna Mudo, Viceroy, Loge, benheeha, MKSinSA, LABobsterofAnaheim, fou, tobendaro, NNadir, sarahnity, Matt Z, OnlyWords, concernedamerican, weatherdude, leftykook, qm1pooh, The BigotBasher, Andrew C White, anodnhajo, jj32, itzik shpitzik, Spirit of Life, sawgrass727, maggiejean, LaughingPlanet, beach babe in fl, pamelabrown, jiffypop, Quicklund, lineatus, edwardssl, mallyroyal, SilverWillow, punkdavid, elmo, christine20, citizenx, qua, Arilca Mockingbird, greycat, Delilah, Shockwave, dizzydean, Bluesee, jsfox, on board 47, Seneca Doane, Diogenes2008, Chitown Kev, S F Hippie, glynis, Dartagnan, madmsf, Zutroy, quaoar, clone12, DarienComp, NoFortunateSon, janmtairy, tytalus, Steve in Urbana, ebirch1, ehstronghold, mygreekamphora, Thinking Fella, lilsky, PaDemTerry, skymutt, parryander, David Kroning II, dannyinla, Themistoclea, voracious, stegro, Jeff Simpson, maxomai, sviscusi, Bule Betawi, blueyescryinintherain, Escamillo, Clem Yeobright, angry hopeful liberal, maybeeso in michigan, translatorpro, Wisdumb, smokeymonkey, Gary Norton, BobzCat, karmsy, radarlady, boran2, Supavash, smartdemmg, jaywillie, marleycat, donnamarie, askew, cato, mem from somerville, lulu57, ChiTownDenny, zerelda, Therapy, Seeds, Ryan in Iowa, Aquarius40, puakev, HamptonRoadsProgressive, CarbonFiberBoy, Calidad, jeffinfremont, I give in to sin, Deep Texan, cpresley, G2geek, SoCalSal, Adam B, Mary Mike, unclejohn, BoxNDox, SherwoodB, rockhound, MrHinkyDink, Denver11, Fonsia, blue jersey mom, otto, Statusquomustgo, leevank, SneakySnu, Birdman, CoExistNow, NYFM, JDWolverton, Truza, charliehall2, AaronInSanDiego, itskevin, dragonlady, Vita Brevis, NYWheeler, Drobin, KMc, Curt Matlock, FG, French Imp, Egalitare, missLotus, science nerd, the mom in the middle, djbender, JanF, Thomasina, NormAl1792, Buckeye in Los Angeles, TobyRocksSoHard, dzog, edrie, aaraujo, skyfox, gramofsam1, ratcityreprobate, Trix, SadieSue, BarackStarObama, BruinKid, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, chimene, oxley, progressivevoice, emal, la urracca, PLS, zenox, Floja Roja, virginislandsguy, Nulwee, SwedishJewfish, maxschell, dtruth, dotsright, houyhnhnm, TexDem, Lorikeet, cacamp, BigDuck, Larsstephens, pvlb, eztempo, flhiii88, raina

    What matters is...how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

    by wmtriallawyer on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:25:39 AM PST

    •  HR me for this if you must for promoting (29+ / 0-)

      my own related diary, but I'd like to channel the snark and sarcasm over Cenk's diary into an actual useful proposal: disappointed Democrats can go into the Republican primary and vote for Herman Cain.  (It's not like they'd have a lot of company among Republicans.)

      "Iowa Dems for Cain" allows the world to get a rough estimate of how many Democrats are disaffected, but it also sends the welcome message that Disaffected Dems are more interested in tweaking the Republicans than in harming their own party.  Everybody wins.  (Ideally, "everybody" includes Cain, who will be fooled into thinking that it's safe to get back into the water.)

      Having a day-long snark-off here would be fun as always, of course, but I just keep imagining the Jan. 4 headline of "Cain wins Iowa" and I get one of those tingles going down my leg.

      Democrats must
      Earn the trust
      Of the 99% --
      That's our intent!

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

      by Seneca Doane on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:42:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  i am always amazed at the hypocricy (21+ / 0-)

      of those who compare Obama to FDR.  or maybe it's just ignorance.  i don't know.  but even when you tell them the terrible things that FDR did they just wave it off.  

      reminds me of how evangelicals respond when confronted with the fact that they don't actually believe everything in the bible.  most of they haven't even read most of the bible, so, you show them the really awful parts and they get this shocked horrified look on their faces and then shake it off and pretend like they didn't just see it.  then they go on to boast about how fundamentalist they are.

      same thing with political ideologues.  they can't be honest about the fact that they are JUST like everyone else.  they have to believe that they are special.  that what they believe makes them the good guys.  that everyone else is either blind or the enemy.  i look at them just the same way as i look at creationists.  i just hope that their belief makes them happy and that they don't cause too much unhappiness to other because of their beliefs.

      we are living on a tiny little speck of a rock somewhere in an infinite universe and the only thing any of us know for sure is that we have each other. i can't imagine how we shouldn't be holding on to each other for dear life. - me

      by Anton Bursch on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:22:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah you see them waving it off in here too (11+ / 0-)

        "sure FDR had flaws BUT..."

        This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

        by mallyroyal on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:50:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i think it's hard for idealists to accept the fact (9+ / 0-)

          that nobody is ideal.  that perfection is unattainable and unreasonable to demand of others.  you would think they would learn after a while.  after the few who seem to really stick to their ideals turn out to be cheating on their dying wife or sending pictures of their penis around the internet.  but just as in religious groups, they just think that their heroes have fallen instead of accepting the fact that there are no ideal people in real life.

          i think that some people just need to believe that the ideal is real or life is too difficult for them to process.  which is why most of the time i just keep my mouth shut around them and let them get enjoy their bliss.  

          we are living on a tiny little speck of a rock somewhere in an infinite universe and the only thing any of us know for sure is that we have each other. i can't imagine how we shouldn't be holding on to each other for dear life. - me

          by Anton Bursch on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:54:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  complete bullshit (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            itsbenj, Redbug, churchylafemme

            there are many many people who go about leading goods lives, being good decent humans.  Its not some freaking fantasy ideal.

            Its sad that you think being an all around decent person is so extraordinary.

            Bad is never good until worse happens

            by dark daze on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:01:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  being an all around decent politician (3+ / 0-)

              is extraordinary. it's easy to manage from the armchair tho - why just last week i solved climate change from right here at home.

            •  being judgemental isn't being a good person (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HudsonValleyMark, Larsstephens

              being kind to people is being a good person.  being generous to people is being a good person.  being merciful to people is being a good person.  sacrificing to help others is being a good person.

              sitting on a seat of judgement looking down at other people and condemning them for not being as wonderful as you are is NOT being a good person.

              life is fucking short, dark daze.   it can be over at any moment.  everyone that we love we will one day lose or they will lose us.  we are surrounded by wonder and beauty but we only get to have just the shortest slightest glimpse of it before we end.  

              i don't judge people because everyone in life is a victim of incredible loss.  everyone is scared and trying to hold on to what joy they have.  our lives are a tragedy and at the same time a gift.  

              why would i be a good person because i look at my neighbor and think that they aren't living good enough for my standards?  i think that would make me a blind person.  someone who can't see through the eyes of other people.

              i just love people.  i accept them for who they are.  i trust those who can be trusted with what they have proven that they can be trusted with.  i try to give people the same kind of mercy that i show to myself.

              on a personal note, from me to you, dark daze.  you are always angry at people.  always  condemning people.  always certain that people will fuck each other over.  always quick to see into their hearts and judge them.  and what has that done for good?  it has made you a hopeless person who believes the world is spiraling into destruction.  

              on the other hand, i don't judge people.  i have hope that people will not fuck each other over.  i am quick to see the good in people.  i am a hopeful person who believes that the world is taking a winding path toward peace and happiness.  

              tell me.  look back through history.  which people made the world a better place?  those who had hope and faith in the goodness of people and didn't expect perfection of them?  or those who condemned people who didn't live up to their standards and believed that the world was going to hell in a hand basket?  

              we are living on a tiny little speck of a rock somewhere in an infinite universe and the only thing any of us know for sure is that we have each other. i can't imagine how we shouldn't be holding on to each other for dear life. - me

              by Anton Bursch on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:02:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  wow what a load of shit (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Redbug

                must be a sad life to have such low expectations.

                it has made you a hopeless person who believes the world is spiraling into destruction.  
                 what a laod fo shit, you dont know the first thing about me, just like most of the subjects you talk about here.  
                  Just making shit up as you go along.

                Bad is never good until worse happens

                by dark daze on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 06:18:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  all i know about you is what you say (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Larsstephens

                  and what i have heard you say for years is that nobody ever lives up to your expectations.  

                  has it ever occurred to you that your expectations might be too high for mere mortals to live up to?

                  go ahead and call my life sad because i don't expect people to be saints.  i stopped caring what self righteous judgmental people think of me when i stopped being a minister and quit going to church.  

                  we are living on a tiny little speck of a rock somewhere in an infinite universe and the only thing any of us know for sure is that we have each other. i can't imagine how we shouldn't be holding on to each other for dear life. - me

                  by Anton Bursch on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:23:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  fyi (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Redbug, churchylafemme

                you act as if having someone who swears to uphold the Constitution, and then actually does that, is somehow asking too much.

                Fucking sad, dude, fucking sad.

                Bad is never good until worse happens

                by dark daze on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 06:20:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  no, i don't act that way (0+ / 0-)

                  and i wasn't referring to that when i wrote my posts above.  i was talking about how people use FDR as some standard while ignoring all the horrible things he did.  i was talking about how unrealistic it is to throw out the good a person does because they do some things you don't approve of.  

                  i don't approve of imprisoning people without a trial.  i don't think the people who want to do it are bad people though.  i can see their reasoning.  i think they are making a huge mistake, but they aren't being bad people in my opinion.  

                  we are living on a tiny little speck of a rock somewhere in an infinite universe and the only thing any of us know for sure is that we have each other. i can't imagine how we shouldn't be holding on to each other for dear life. - me

                  by Anton Bursch on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:34:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Hypocrite. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                churchylafemme

                You condemn judgementalism and say that you "don't judge people", but this post of yours is nothing but you being judgemental.

                •  um, no, i didn't judge anyone in that post (0+ / 0-)

                  judging people is saying whether they are good or bad

                  we are living on a tiny little speck of a rock somewhere in an infinite universe and the only thing any of us know for sure is that we have each other. i can't imagine how we shouldn't be holding on to each other for dear life. - me

                  by Anton Bursch on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:29:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Well, FDR had accomplishments to his credit. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        praenomen, dark daze, lenzy1000

        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 01:32:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well Put (0+ / 0-)

        The "not being some ordinary bub" attitude is something I've noticed in my time around here.

        I am an atheist for moral purposes. Seriously.

        by otto on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 06:02:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed (0+ / 0-)

      "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

      by zenox on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:27:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You forgot (16+ / 0-)

    to include the non sequitur "Ron Paul" tag, and then get pissy when someone brings it up.

    ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:30:56 AM PST

  •  Apparently Obama was always... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, Punditus Maximus, Nulwee

    ...pretty conservative.  Hey - he fooled me; when he was campaigning in 2008 I swore I saw a progressive.

    If he's ousted as Prez he should join Penn and Teller.

  •  "I pity the fool...." (8+ / 0-)

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:38:03 AM PST

  •  in a primary (5+ / 0-)

    the thing you're satirizing was a call to vote 'uncommitted' in the Iowa caucus. that may or may not be a sound thing to do, but at least satirize what it actually is, not something that you warp to make easier to satirize.

        •  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 ]

    •  Actually...that's not what I'm satirizing. (55+ / 0-)

      I'm satirizing folks like Cenk who are disappointed in Obama for not being a progressive hero-President, but at the same time would hold up as an example of a progressive hero-President someone like FDR.

      What matters is...how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

      by wmtriallawyer on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:51:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about Abraham Lincoln? (12+ / 0-)

    "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated."

  •  Ya know, the funny thing is (51+ / 0-)

    I'm not even that supportive of Obama and never really have been. I'm glad the he was elected, but he's been exactly who I thought he would be. He TOLD you all he would be working with republicans. Fer chrissakes he once said he wasn't opposed to having a republican VP!

    But the constant hyperventilation over him cracks me up. OMG he's just like Bush!

    Was everyone asleep during 2001-2008? Or did they just get so used to being in Outrage Mode that they know no other form of existence?  

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:48:37 AM PST

    •  I love when folks appeal to emotion... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, fou

      and leave out convenient facts.

    •  He didn't fool me either (0+ / 0-)

      I knew he was a corporate sellout all along. I knew we were screwed when the media excluded all the candidates but Obama and Hillary. I knew it when he backtracked his comment about lobbyists at the table within a week. I knew it when he attacked union donations to another campaign. I never believed any of his crap and I was right. He followed the same playbook the Clintons did in '92. Run as a populist and once elected, fill and cabinet with lobbyists, make a half assed attempt at healthcare reform and turn on all the hard working americans who put him there.

      Fool me once...........(oh wait, the Clintons didn't fool me either, I passed on them as well).

      Some people have short memories

      by lenzy1000 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:25:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh (9+ / 0-)

    I see what you did there.

    Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

    by tomjones on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:53:17 AM PST

  •  Imagine what Kos would have been like, (28+ / 0-)

    the day we learned FDR dumped Wallace for that DLC lackey Harry Truman.  At least Bill Douglas would have been good on the environment.  

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:56:45 AM PST

    •  And, his replacement on the (8+ / 0-)

      Court would have done so much more than he did.

      Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:59:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Heh - I'd go back further than that... (12+ / 0-)

      What happens if you give the good (Frances Townsend, for example), the bad (say... Father Coughlin, perhaps in the populist, pre-antisemitic days), and the I-say-he'd-have-been-scary-but-can't-prove-it ugly (Huey Long) an internet and cable news to play with?

      On one hand -- we did have a pretty vibrant community of newspapers small and large, ideological and not... Especially in dense urban settings, you certainly got exposed to plenty of pamphlets and printings.

      However - what I think we didn't have was the 'instant gratification' and digital age pressure to be "first and loudest".

      The employment picture, as an example, had really just begun to turn around in 1935 - and would still take more time to get back to pre-crash levels (while a lot of farm foreclosures -- see William Lemke's '36 challenge as an example continued well into the 30s).

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:26:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  FDR sucked on some things too... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman, Chitown Kev, Johnny Q, Nulwee

    like the way he handled the Bonus Army, allowing FHA to continue the practice of red lining of undesirable neighborhoods...keeping Jim Crow intact. But ya know, he did pass the New Deal and a host of other great measures...but Obama...he ain't no FDR.

    •  Sure -- and the bullk of the New Deal (33+ / 0-)

      that we know and love came after the '34 midterms when FDR got majorities that were monstrously enormous... the House was somewhere in the neighborhood 350-100, while the Senate was ~70-25...

      And those New Deal programs had the southern dems on board not in a vacuum, but because FDR traded a host of discriminatory practices for them.

      And he still got a relatively significant 3rd party challenge from the left in the form of the ashes of Huey Long's one-time vehicle.

      Presidents -- especially the good ones like FDR and Obama -- have to deal with the position of the national fulcrum.   FDR was fortunate to have a national fulcrum that was decisively progressive and populist.  Obama is unfortunate enough to still have wafts of the Reagan revolution and a nation that thinks by and large we've gone far enough.

      Critics of Social Security in the 1930s on the left considered it watered down, sell-out version of the much stronger Townsend Plans that had been all the rage for years....   Critics of PPACA simply criticize PPACA.

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:09:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  FDR had real constraints (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Q

        FDR earned his majorities.

        Revisionist historians really suck at parliamentary history because it took 2/3rds to overcome a filibuster and FDR started with the exact same senators Obama did.

        I don't know what polling you are going by. It must be fantasy polling form the corporate media that tells us this is a center right country instead of the very real support for socials security and even single payer.

        The PPCACA is private. Social Security was public as was Townsend's plan.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

        by priceman on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:41:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not quite true (10+ / 0-)

          The most prominent usage of the filibuster in the 1930s actually came from Huey Long, not from right-side opposition --- and cloture was regularly achieved because no one in the Senate particularly liked Long.   Right or wrong - and yeah, I agree that it's wrong - it didn't routinely take supermajorities to get a bill through the Senate as it does today.

          What's more -- the 59-36-1 (with the 1 being a DFLer) included amongst the Republicans... ND Senator Gerald Nye, who was probably to the left of FDR economically, and SD Senator Pete Norbeck, who actually set up the "Pecora Commission" and appointed the Ferdinand Pecora so many progressives love to bring up today.  You had Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg, who was a Republican supporter of the New Deal (at least, until the mid-1930s).  You had Lynn Frazier - who established the ND public bank as governor that progressives love... In fact -- virtually all of the plains and mountain Republicans were at least on par with, if not often to the left of, a lot of Democrats in the 1930s when it came to economic matters.   They tended to be isolationists and as one would expect -- generally most interested in agrarian matters and farm loans -- but any opposition they threw up was usually because certain programs didn't go far enough.

          Even the more loathesome of the GOPers then -- say, PA's Jim Davies (a big eugenics guy) -- were amendable to then-relatively progressive ideas like the right of labor to strike.

          But to delve deeper -- what did FDR got from the 1932-34 New Deal?

          Well... we have the Banking Act, but this is sort of moot as the bill was done and ready to go before FDR took office.  

          Both Social Security and the WPA would come in the 2nd New Deal after the '34 midterms, when the Senate went to 69-25-2 (with both of the two being to the left of Democrats).   The Wagner Act and the meat of the labor reforms likewise came after the midterms.

          Even liberal historians tend to call the NRA a moderate failure... We had the creation of the FHA -- but it was really the '37 enhancements that bulked it up.

          Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

          by zonk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:36:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

            the anti lynching bill was filibustered too and came up for cloture and failed twice and the bank Holiday and explaining to the public what it was was also from FDR so it's not quite true that it was all ready to go, though some of it was. Plus it doesn't really take away the fact that FDR fought for it.

            There wee decent Republicans back then. I agree on that, but the filibuster still caused great harm back then.

            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

            by priceman on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:49:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure - civil rights bills (6+ / 0-)

              were historically killed by the filibuster up through the 60s.

              Of course -- if I were arguing your point of view, I wouldn't exactly be bringing that up in this case, because FDR was "loudly" silent on the mid-30s Costigan-Wagner anti-lynching bill, much to the disturbment of a number of civil rights activists who had backed him in '32.  In fact - a fair number of historical sources explicitly claim that FDR essentially traded his silence on the bill for votes on other legislation.

              Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

              by zonk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:08:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  While Eleanor was working on it sure. (0+ / 0-)

                Like I said real constraints, not fantasy ones.

                There's also EO 8802 with pressure from Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, and A. J. Muste but still most significant since the 13th and 14th amendments at that time.

                Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                by priceman on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:39:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As I recall (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Fogiv, qm1pooh, gramofsam1, Nulwee

                  Eleanor working on civil rights and anti-lynching matters was more a matter of friction than agreement between the Roosevelts....

                  And as for EO 8802 - well, I know there was a march planned.... but it was also after the draft had been reinstated -- and the US had just a few months prior passed the Lend-Lease commitment (which required a cool half trillion dollars or so -- in today's money -- of equipment to be constructed).  I'm not saying it was all one or the other -- but by 1941, FDR was well aware of the need for an unprecedentedly massive military building program and certainly had ulterior motives for ensuring the shipyards and factories didn't suffer any labor shortages...

                  Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                  by zonk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:21:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  In fact I did diary this example... (0+ / 0-)

                it was one of my most popular diaries, and he wasn't exactly taking it in stride at the time.

                Of course -- if I were arguing your point of view, I wouldn't exactly be bringing that up in this case, because FDR was "loudly" silent on the mid-30s Costigan-Wagner anti-lynching bill, much to the disturbment of a number of civil rights activists who had backed him in '32.  In fact - a fair number of historical sources explicitly claim that FDR essentially traded his silence on the bill for votes on other legislation.

                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 06:18:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  FDR started with the same exact senators as (0+ / 0-)

          President Obama...i know Nelson and Baucus are old...but that old?

    •  You got the wrong President (5+ / 0-)

      President Hoover is the one who chased off the Bonus Army...

      (but FDR apparently had his Bonus Army blemishes too-WIKI says that the 1936 Congress hadda override his veto of a bill to give them their bonus early--REALLY?  FDR VETOED THE BONUS????  REALLY????)

      (MAJOR FACEPALM)

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:22:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  FDR gave them jobs in the Keys (8+ / 0-)

        and did not insure their safe evacuation during the great hurricane of 1935. He didn't violently chase off the Bonus army, but he cut benefits for Veterans that put tremendous hardship on them. He didn't wise up until several years later, and then finally the GI bill in '45. I just read a great book on the subject:

        THe Bonus Army: An American Epic, by Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen.

        •  Ironically (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scorpiorising, Fogiv, qm1pooh, itsbenj, Nulwee

          Just started reading that very book xmas weekend -- and concur, it's an absolutely fascinating and good read about an episode of history that a lot of people don't know about...

          Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

          by zonk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:50:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I guess Jim crow staying in place (14+ / 0-)

      can be shrugged off by some. My granddaddy and grand momma didn't have those luxuries.

      Obama ain't FDR, indeed.

      And don't get me started on our revered founding fathers. As a woman and an African American with Native American blood on my maternal side, I have a great deal of extreme ambivalence about those dudes.

      Expect to have ambivalence. No one is a caricature in real life.

      I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

      by mdmslle on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:45:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fucking Hilarious! (7+ / 0-)

    Well played!

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:06:26 AM PST

  •  Fuck that. (4+ / 0-)

    You forget that he also oversaw the development of nuclear weapons.

    Reminding us that FDR was also a politician and sucked, too, therefore we shouldn't expect nor ask better of our current politicians isn't exactly the best way to get us out of current situation. At least in my opinion.

    "All I have left is pain and hope-- Hope that the pain will fade away..."

    by Cofcos on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:11:54 AM PST

  •  fool me once, shame on you (4+ / 0-)

    fool me ...uh...twice, um...shame on you again.

    Fool me eleventy fourfteen times, I won't get fooled again.

    Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

    by LaughingPlanet on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:18:02 AM PST

  •  We're Not in a World War at the Moment. (5+ / 0-)

    No matter how much we're spending on one.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:18:17 AM PST

  •  Good snark beat HRs any day (12+ / 0-)

    THIS is the way to respond to an absurd diary.  By ridiculing it with smart snark, not by trying to HR it into oblivion.

    In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
    The young emerald evening star,
    Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
    And ladies soon to be married.

    by looty on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:18:20 AM PST

  •  thanks for this. I didn't even wanna mess up (15+ / 0-)

    the bottoms of my sneakers commenting in that POS.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:22:58 AM PST

  •  You Are Wise, Chester Tarbell! (5+ / 0-)

    Indeed, since WDFH increased their signal power and I too can partake of the Hemp Butter Biscuits Electric Radio Hour, I am thankful that your wisdom cuts through the cacophony of the main-source airwave news reporting.

    Not only do you dare to face up to our treasonous Plutocrat In Chief, but I quite enjoyed last weeks special series entitled: "Those Can't Possibly Be Barbara Stanwyck's Real Tits."

    Those in power must hear the truth, and when you speak it you speak for me!

  •  Ah, wmtriallawyer (21+ / 0-)

    One moniker that is always a welcome on-screen sight.

    Today, the reputation only grows. thanks for the holiday present.  (Thought I think that empty suit political functionary he picked as VP will never amount to a hill of beans.)

  •  when all else fails... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, LeftOverAmerica, Nulwee

    link todays endless war with World War 2... it's a can't lose argument.

  •  I love your newsreels (5+ / 0-)

    and I make sure to listen to your radio show even though you are opposite to Uncle Miltie.

  •  Sort of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, qm1pooh, Nulwee

    says it all - biggest smile I've worn all day.

    Without heroes we are all losers with nothing to aspire to.

    by qua on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:37:38 AM PST

  •  Apples and Oranges (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, Into The Woods, emal

    because FDR threatened to pack the court much of the New deal could then be passed.

    The debate is entirely different and it was because of Huey Long and the Union ticket's disdain from FDR that pressured him to go for the New Deal which was something to build on unlike Dolecare or "let's have a TBTF party.

    These hyperventilating diaries pretending we are hyperventilating when we want someone like FDR are basically ignorant. And yes back then some Conservative Democrats like Carter Glass had some good ideas related to finance though he was opposed to the New Deal's fiscal policies for a time.

    None of this is really a feasible rebuttal to anything or anyone who knows history.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

    by priceman on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:48:58 AM PST

  •  Don't forget the Smith Act (12+ / 0-)

    which FDR signed in 1940.  It criminalized action or speech that was deemed to have advocated overthrow of the government.  In practice this was mostly used to prosecute Communists, Trotskyites, and leftist labor leaders.  But as early as 1934 FDR had authorized J. Edgar Hoover to investigate various leftist organizations for possible Communist infiltration, he had the Treasury Department go after critics from his left like Huey Long and Father Coughlin, and especially in the period right before and then during the war these investigations spread to partisan opponents (read this report by the 1976 Frank Church committee for more information).

    But that doesn't matter because FDR said "I welcome their hatred."

    "In the long run, Americans will always do the right thing — after exploring all other alternatives." - Winston Churchill

    by puakev on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:51:21 AM PST

  •  Outstanding Work (17+ / 0-)

    Over the summer, I read a long biography of Roosevelt and have in mind a half a dozen diaries like this one, but I have been too lazy to write them, and I wouldn't have had the skill of this diarist anyways. Nice job. In a nutshell, Roosevelt did at least a dozen major things -- and countless smaller things -- to piss off the progressives of his time. Even in his first 100 days, he cut veteran's benefits because he wasn't fully on board with Keynesianism and believed that his new spending programs had to be at least partially offset with spending cuts!

    I don't hate Cenk, but he's basically on a path to do for the progressive cause what Ralph Nader in 2000.

    Pretty soon, and I mean maybe beginning January 1, 2012, we need to suck it up and save our criticisms of Obama -- and many are valid -- for 2013, because I'd rather see progressives sniping at a President Obama than at a President Romney.

  •  And the other guy has a TV show (11+ / 0-)

    This diary is brilliant and perfect.

    Abuse of executive power is nothing new, and the deals FDR cut on social programs, although eroded away with time, were arguably more sinister.

  •  Of course, the difference between a real live (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, Into The Woods, emal

    "hot" World War in which Europe's democracies, and perhaps our own, were actually at stake versus a few dozen / hundred at the most rabble-rousing terrorists who could bring down an airliner or two, but never actually invade, occupy or destroy the entire nation makes this allusion completely applicable, I guess.

    I don't justify Roosevelt's actions.
    I don't justify Obama's actions.

    But to suggest the circumstances of 1944 were remotely similar to the "threat" the USA faces today is just disingenuous at best.

    That's just me - always a contrarian . . .

    What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

    by YucatanMan on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:05:00 PM PST

  •  You and Saint-Exupery. Best writers of 1943. (6+ / 0-)
  •  It is hard to recognize a great leader (6+ / 0-)

    in the moment; because true leadership means making practical decisions. Sometimes, a general has to retreat to win the day - to the foot soldier in the moment this maybe very hard to understand. With the playing board that President Obama was given, I think he has made very wise and well thought out decisions and has managed to move the agenda in the farther in the right direction than I would have thought possible.

    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

    by Wisdumb on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:42:29 PM PST

    •  What "playing board" forced him to accept NDAA? (0+ / 0-)

      Is the escalating American presence in Iraq?

      Is it our committment to a long-term war in Afghanistan?

      Is it the abject failure of the 'rule of law' to address 'home-grown' terror (if 'associated' with al Qaeda or the Taliban)?

      There are many things Obama can blame on the "playing board", NDAA 2012 is not one of them.

      Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

      by Into The Woods on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:35:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point of the diary (0+ / 0-)

        is that all presidents make decisions that we would disagree with. There is not a single president who hasn't made horrible decisions. But that doesn't mean that there hasn't been great presidents. When you sit in that seat, decisions you make have millions of consequences some intended many more unintended.

        I disagree with his decision on NDAA - but if he hadn't decided in that direction and if something horrible happened - the Repubs would scream it from the roof tops and it might be 50 years before another Democrat was in the White House.

        "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

        by Wisdumb on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 06:56:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So instead, he removes the veto threat ensuring (0+ / 0-)

          that something terrible happens.

          Besides, neither the military nor intelligence services were asking for this expansion of the law.

          Oh and is that why President Kerry won in 2004?

          Surrendering what we are in an unnecessary effort to protect ourselves from a dwindling threat, a threat that was never and certainly now is not anywhere near that faced even during the Cold War, to gain some political advantage or additional executive power is a betrayal of our Country.  

          One of my Senators voted for it and will not get my vote.  The other opposed it and will get my vote.  

          As for Obama.  I'm still deciding.  

          Doesn't mean I'll vote for the Republicans, but when issues this fundamental and long-lasting are implicated, withholding our consent/vote is sometimes required.

          Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

          by Into The Woods on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:14:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If Kerry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Into The Woods

            had pushed his military record harder he could have won. He allowed scalawags to "swift boat" him. He should have pointed at Bush during a debate and said - "I was brave enough to go to Vietnam." and he would have won.

            I know I won't convince you of anything - but voting based on a single decision is what the Teafools do.

            I just think you need to look at records in totality and base your votes on that.

            I would have been very easy to say that you wouldn't vote for Harry Truman because of his decision to drop - not one but two atom bombs on Japan.  Other choices he made were not the best.

            As the above diary points out FDR made many deeply cynical decisions that make me cringe when I read about them. However I think he is one of the -if not the - greatest president.

            Great men make great mistakes.

            "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

            by Wisdumb on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:25:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the great mistakes were balanced by great (0+ / 0-)

              achievements, I'd be more inclined towards enthusiasm.

              HCR was a big achievement.
              Much of the rest has been marginal and seems good only when compared to how bad Bush was.

              I think Obama had (has?) the potential for rising to that level of transformative presidency, but after running such a transformative campaign, he quickly settled in to a very traditional status quo presidency - not what we needed given the situation we were and are in.

              The jury is still out for Nov 2012.  But its looking iffy.

              Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

              by Into The Woods on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:31:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  All I would ask is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Into The Woods

                that you don't underestimate what he was facing as the first African-American president. The first openly LGBT president will have the same obligation to show the American people that they can be president and the world doesn't shift off it's axis. Obama would have been impeached (they would have found something or made something up) if he had tried to enact to much change all at once.

                As a member of the LGBT community I think he did a great job handling the ending of DADT. Others would disagree with me.  I think sometimes change has to come at the right pace for people to accept it and therefore to make it lasting.

                The second term of a president is when they can make more dramatic changes. These days Obama had to start running for his second term before he was even settle in at the White House.

                "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

                by Wisdumb on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 05:35:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for the very cogent response. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wisdumb

                  I will keep what you say in mind.  We all (I) tend to focus a bit too much on the narrow issues of the day or ones that are of particular interest to us.  

                  Remembering elements of the larger picture often requires the pooling of different perspectives which is why a reasoned, patient and persistent advocacy such as yours is so essential and so refreshing.  

                  Thanks again.  

                  Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

                  by Into The Woods on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:47:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Under Obama's watch, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, Matias, Into The Woods

    unemployment has gotten worse and stayed there while Obama has spent his entire domestic agenda protecting banksters.

    FDR had plenty of flaws, but among them was not his willingness to act as a class warrior for the 1%.

    shrug  Obama wants to fail.  If you care about this country, work with #occupy.  Of course, that takes real courage, since Obama's made clear that he will turn a blind eye to any injustice done by local police.  

    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 12:43:26 PM PST

    •  And I think we all know where your sentiments lie. (8+ / 0-)
    •  I've pointed out to you many times (6+ / 0-)

      that when he took office, the first month, the US lost 800k jobs. Unemployment rate shot up immediately within the first few months. It's now down to 8.6%.

      The rest of what you say is nonsense and garbage. The diarist makes an excellent point about how anti obama progressives praise FDR and criticize Obama about NDAA but forget that FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans.

      •  I don't "forget" anything. (0+ / 0-)

        FDR's actions were a stain on this country.

        But Obama will come and go, solving nothing.  He's just a hack who has decided to fail because succeeding would be too hard.

        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 01:36:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: FDR (6+ / 0-)

      One of the fundamental misconceptions of the New Deal is that it was anti-wealthy.  Rather, as Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson remarked in 1937, “The only just criticism that can be made of the economic operations of the New Deal is that it set out a breakfast for the canary and let the cat steal it.”

      To name a few things FDR did on behalf of the 1%: The Economy Act which cut veterans' pensions and the salaries of federal employees, bailing out the banks instead of nationalizing them, passing the Beer and Wine Revenue Act (which was the holy grail of archconservative Pierre Du Pont and financier John Raskob) thus imposing a regressive sales tax (while not asking the rich to pay any new taxes until the Wealth Tax Act of 1935, a largely symbolic measure) suspending antitrust laws and allowing price fixing under the NRA, paying subsidies to large landowners to take land of out production which usually came at the expense of poor sharecroppers...the list goes on and on.  Letting Wall Street and big business run war production.  Blocking the Wagner Act in 1934 to avoid alienating business support.  And other than Richard Whitney, former head of the New York Stock Exchange, who went to jail for embezzlement in 1938, no major figures associated with the financial shenanigans that caused the Great Depression were sent to prison.  Charles Mitchell of National City Bank was acquitted of tax evasion in 1934.  Samuel Insull wasn't charged with crimes related to the collapse of his holding company empire until after he'd fled to Greece, and in any case he was acquitted when finally tried.

      In many ways the reason why FDR became increasingly belligerent towards the wealthy was less class warfare than it was resentment at their lack of gratitude.  As Arthur Schlesinger wrote:

      As Roosevelt looked back over his administration, he thought he had displayed great forbearance.  The New Deal, he believed, had saved the position and the profits of the businessmen.  He had forgiven their errors of the past and their lack of ideas for the future.  And now organized business was assuming what he regarded as a posture of indiscriminate, stupid, and vindictive opposition…The rich may have though Roosevelt was betraying his class; but Roosevelt certainly supposed (as Richard Hofstadter has suggested) that his class was betraying him. (Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, p. 272)

      But I know, FDR said "I welcome their hatred."
       

      "In the long run, Americans will always do the right thing — after exploring all other alternatives." - Winston Churchill

      by puakev on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:50:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I love that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fogiv, qm1pooh, Nulwee

        "I welcome their hatred" quotation.

        It was in a campaign speech in 1936. His acceptance speech for the nomination, I think.

        In 20 years, the very same people who hate Obama now will be favorably quoting something he will say in his 2012 nomination speech. They'll have no notion that progressives ever opposed him, and many will have have forgotten that they themselves opposed him.

        Just wait. Happens every time.

        For example, look how often they cite LBJ as a hero. Back in '68, LBJ was perhaps the most hated politician by those on the left. I recall a slogan, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did ya kill today?"

        Jonathan Chait nailed it. Liberals always hate their own. (Then we wonder why we can't win.)

        Enjoy the San Diego Zoo's panda cam!

        by Fonsia on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:45:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So true. Most LBJ worship on here seems to come (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fonsia

          from Gen Xers who, conveniently enough, weren't draft age...

          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 06:26:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  A Brief Response by FDR (4+ / 0-)
        ...That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy - from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

        And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own Government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

        Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people.  The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

        For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

        There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

        It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

        The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

        Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

        Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

        An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

        For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

        Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

        The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

        Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.


        These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

        The brave and clear platform adopted by this Convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that Government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

        But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

        For more than three years we have fought for them. This Convention, in every word and deed, has pledged that that fight will go on.

        The defeats and victories of these years have given to us as a people a new understanding of our Government and of ourselves. Never since the early days of the New England town meeting have the affairs of Government been so widely discussed and so clearly appreciated. It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for the safety of this most worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle.

        We do not see faith, hope and charity as unattainable ideals, but we use them as stout supports of a Nation fighting the fight for freedom in a modern civilization.

        Faith - in the soundness of democracy in the midst of dictatorships.

        Hope - renewed because we know so well the progress we have made.

        Charity - in the true spirit of that grand old word. For charity literally translated from the original means love, the love that understands, that does not merely share the wealth of the giver, but in true sympathy and wisdom helps men to help themselves.

        We seek not merely to make Government a mechanical implement, but to give it the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity.

        We are poor indeed if this Nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dread fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.

        In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity.

        It is a sobering thing, my friends, to be a servant of this great cause. We try in our daily work to remember that the cause belongs not to us, but to the people. The standard is not in the hands of you and me alone. It is carried by America. We seek daily to profit from experience, to learn to do better as our task proceeds.

        Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales.

        Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.

        There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

        In this world of ours in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight. They have sold their heritage of freedom for the illusion of a living. They have yielded their democracy.

        I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is not alone a war against want and destitution and economic demoralization. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy. We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.

        I accept the commission you have tendered me. I join with you. I am enlisted for the duration of the war.

        From FDR, that great corporate apologist and non-confrontational moderate.  Which is why ever since the Republicans have been frantically trying to repeal the New Deal and from Reagan's day forward have been succeeding in growing measure - because FDR was so darned moderate and friendly to the rich and powerful.  

        Acceptance of Nomination for Second Term

        Franklin D. Roosevelt June 27, 1936 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

        Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

        by Into The Woods on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:48:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The "rendezvous with destiny" speech (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nulwee, Into The Woods

          is one of my all-time favorite pieces of political rhetoric.  But what my comment, which you replied to, was meant to convey was that there is a wide gulf between speech and action.

          If we just went by President Obama's speeches, he'd still be acceptable at Firedoglake.  But it's been Obama's actions that explain why he's Satan reincarnate to the Firedoglake crowd.

          Roosevelt was often guilty of the same thing.  As a newsletter from the Southern Tenant Farmers' Union said of Roosevelt, "too often the progressive word has been the clothing for a conservative act.  Too often he has talked like a cropper and acted like a planter."

          And as for your statement that "the Republicans have been frantically trying to repeal the New Deal," well if that is the barometer for success, then the current President has succeeded given that Republicans are similarly trying to repeal what he has accomplished.  Of course, the intensity of Republican opposition alone isn't sufficient to determine the success of a particular program.  Rather success is defined by how many lives a program or policy has improved, or whether it has reduced certain types of abuses.

          The jury wasn't out on Social Security for many years since benefits didn't get paid out until 1941, large groups of people - mainly minorities - were ineligible for benefits, and benefits were quite paltry until the 1950 Social Security amendments.  The same might be said of the Affordable Care Act - we won't know how effective a program it is until it has been fully implemented, and likely until it has gone through several changes.

          Rhetoric is great and important.  But whether it's FDR or Obama, actions and results should have greater weight than rhetoric in making judgments about politicians.  On that score I believe FDR is the greater president, however he did a great deal of things that are similar to or even worse than the things Obama has been condemned by liberals for.  Citing FDR's lofty rhetoric doesn't change that.

          "In the long run, Americans will always do the right thing — after exploring all other alternatives." - Winston Churchill

          by puakev on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:56:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd take the New Deal's Financial Reform (0+ / 0-)

            and work programs and advances in requirements for work conditions and support of the arts and prosecutions and exposure of Wall Street misdeeds over the weak tea we've seen from Obama.  

            I agree that Republican opposition cannot be the measure of worth, but the New Deal with its programs, regulations and values redefined America for 5 decades before the Republicans were able to even begin to roll back the tide and it showed in public support of the Democratic party.

            Since then, we've compromised both the New Deal values and the public support that went with them.

            I agree that we cannot judge Social Security full grown as we know it today against the health reform bill that has barely begun to take effect, but at least it contained the seed of the idea that could be expanded (one of the reasons so many of us were so disappointed in the disappearance of the public option.)

            FDR was not perfect by any means.  But he intended to be and was transformative because he fought for an agenda that was so aggressive in its day that it bordered on (or crossed the border of) that which was unconstitutional because it helped the 99% too much.

            Today's equivalent is the NDAA 2012, GITMO and the ACA personal mandate.  

            Not quite in the same category.

            Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

            by Into The Woods on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:25:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  With some of these baggers... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        qm1pooh, Nulwee

        ...I honestly think that if Obama had just said "I welcomed their hatred", and implemented an agenda half as liberal, they'd jump up and down and clap like fools.

      •  You're right. (0+ / 0-)

        FDR was capable of learning that the wealthy who caused the current crisis are incapable of gratitude for being rescued from its effects.  

        It'd be awesome if Obama could learn that, but my suspicion is that his campaign funds would dry up if he did.

        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 Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:22:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  So perfect. You capture the essence of (8+ / 0-)

    what is wrong with purity. Even our best Presidents have done things, often horrible things while in office. They disappoint us for things done and undone. Yet we can't measure by them by those things alone. We must look at the totality of their record and weigh it against the record we would have had from their opponents. That everyone can't understand this is boggling.

    The only person who lives up to my expectations is me, and even that's often not the case.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:46:45 PM PST

    •  Well, the "totality" of Obama's record is... (0+ / 0-)

      what, exactly? A few measly health insurance reforms? A solidly Republican House and a (probably) Republican Senate?

      I know some of Obama's policies have borne fruit, viz., GM and Ford. I know if McCain had been elected we'd probably have 15% unemployment now. But ANY Democrat would have done, at a minimum, what Obama did to "rescue" the economy.

      I happen to be someone who believes deeply that the Republican Party is the single greatest threat to our country's security and well-being. And I simply can't get past the egotistical incompetence of Obama's kumbaya bipartisanship, and the Republican wave it created in 2010.

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

      by LongTom on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:24:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you sure about that? (0+ / 0-)

        Almost VP Joe Lieberman?
        Ben Nelson?
        Blanche Lincoln?
        Patty Murray?
        Max Baucus?
        Mark Pryor?
        Ken Salazar?
        Mary Landrieu?
        Kay Hagan?

        But ANY Democrat would have done, at a minimum, what Obama did to "rescue" the economy.

        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 06:28:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Were any of them running in 2008? (0+ / 0-)

          Besides, yes, I think they all would have pushed a stimulus package, It was the most obvious thing in the world.

          Even if one or two voted against it for local political reasons, as president they would have gone ahead with it.

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

          by LongTom on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:10:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  And... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wmtriallawyer, qm1pooh

    ...I won't be buying any more Studebakers.  I'll only drive a Nash from this point forward.

    I'm boran2 and I approve this message. -SLB-

    by boran2 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:53:29 PM PST

  •  Obama != FDR (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dumbo, LongTom, lenzy1000, pot

    By the way he's allowed our public treasury to be plundered by the private banks with no consequences, he's much more akin to Herbert Hoover. By the way he wages a paranoid war on whistleblowers and claims unlimited executive power he's much more akin to J. Edgar Hoover.

    Obama == Hoover

    And he should be challenged in the primary by a progressive. And he should continue to be challenged by progressives in the streets.

    •  Funny you mention J. Edgar Hoover (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matias, askew, Fogiv, qm1pooh, jj32, Nulwee

      since FDR gave J. Edgar Hoover authority to spy on leftist groups during the 1930s, which was later expanded to spying on political opponents.

      For example, as the Church committee report noted:

      For example, in 1937 the Attorney General sent the President an FBI report on a proposed pilgrimage to Washington to urge passage of legislation to benefit American youth. The report stated that the American Youth Congress, which sponsored the pilgrimage, was understood to be strongly Communistic.  Later reports in 1937 described the Communist Party's role in plans by the Workers Alliance for nationwide demonstrations protesting the plight of the unemployed, as well as the Alliance's plans to lobby Congress in support of the federal relief program.

      Some investigations and reports (which went into Justice Department and FBI permanent files) covered entirely legal political activities. For example, one local group checked by the Bureau was called the League for Fair Play, which furnished "speakers to Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs and to schools and colleges." The FBI reported in 1941 that:

      the organization was formed in 1937, apparently by two Ministers and a businessman for the purpose of furthering fair play, tolerance, adherence to the Constitution, democracy, liberty, justice, understanding 'and good will among all creeds, races and classes of the United States.

      A synopsis of the report stated, "No indications of Communist activities."

      In 1944, the FBI prepared an extensive intelligence report on an active political group, the Independent Voters of Illinois, apparently because it was considered a target for Communist "infiltration." The Independent Voters group was reported to have been formed:

      for the purpose of developing neighborhood political units to help in the re-election of President Roosevelt, and the election of progressive congressmen. Apparently, IVI endorsed or aided Democrats for the most part, although it was stated to be "independent." It does not appear that it entered its own candidates or that it endorsed any Communists. IVI sought to help elect those candidates who would favor fighting inflation, oppose race and class discrimination, favor international cooperation, support a "full employment" program, oppose Facism, etc.  

      In short, FDR's government spied on an organization that pushed for passage of federal relief programs and then on an organization that supported full employment, opposed racial and class discrimination, and supported the election of progressive congressmen.  Because these groups were suspected of Communism.

      But I know, Obama's still worse, because at least FDR said "I welcome their hatred."

      "In the long run, Americans will always do the right thing — after exploring all other alternatives." - Winston Churchill

      by puakev on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:07:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's FBI raided the homes (0+ / 0-)

        of anti-war protestors, seized computers, records, checkbooks, childrens drawings on the fridge and just about anything they pleased. Not one protestor has been charged with any crimes. It has been 15 months since the raid and they just recently got most of their stuff back.

        I'm thinking you may not want to go down that FBI road.

        Some people have short memories

        by lenzy1000 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:35:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm perfectly happy to go down the FBI road (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nulwee

          because the point of my comment above was not to absolve President Obama or say that President Obama was somehow better on civil liberties than FDR, but rather to point out that the sainted FDR did some pretty shady things on civil liberties as well.

          Yet the same liberals who condemn President Obama and say they cannot support him because of civil liberties will not dare condemn FDR in the same terms.  And the reason given for the disparate treatment of the two always seems to boil down to "FDR said I welcome their hatred" or some other variation thereof.  

          "In the long run, Americans will always do the right thing — after exploring all other alternatives." - Winston Churchill

          by puakev on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:18:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped and recc'd (8+ / 0-)

    spot on parody.

  •  Cenk should read this snark. It was clever and (8+ / 0-)

    and quick to the point. We should not be distracted completely by certain things that President Obama. Instead, we should take advantage of the fact that the Republicans are in disorder and concentrate on what's happening in Congress. We should take this opportunity to elect more progressive Congresspeople.

  •  Let's see... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, justmy2, emal

    FDR + World War II  equals Obama + Wikileaks.  Sounds about fair for comparison to me!!

    However, what Obama has done is to really just ratify and continue and make traditional the police state policies of the Bush administration.  Whereas crazy ass policies implemented in the days of a desperate war -- a REAL war, by the way were never meant to become the peacetime status quo.

    I could support FDR with qualifications.  I can't support Obama.

    I'm a small government progressive.  I want less government police state.  In fact, I'd give up a lot of other important progressive positions in order to just have our country back the way it was before the Bush+Obama administrations.

    I used to think Bush was an aberration.  Now we have a president embracing and extending the police state.  And diaries supporting him for it on DailyKos.

    •  President Perry with assassination rights (0+ / 0-)

      I am sure everyone here supports that...

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 04:36:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Heck, vote against him in 1936, too! (4+ / 0-)

    He was inaugurated in early 1933, and by 1935 the unemployment rate was still 20.1%.  Even in 1936, it was still 17.0%.  The guy's a bum!  Throw him out!

    PROUD to be a Democrat!

    by leevank on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:02:53 PM PST

  •  Well, this is a most offensive diary! (5+ / 0-)

    It's always a good day for Obama when he gets compared to FDR. However, the comparison breaks down immediately when one considers that FDR led his party to huge electoral victories. By 1936, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the House and Senate by 3 to 1. Obama led his party to the worst off year defeat since 1922.

    The major difference is not in terms of policy so much as a willingness to champion policy. FDR was a leader; Obama most emphatically is not, and doesn't even want to be. FDR was a champion of the normal, working American, who needed confidence and inspiration from a new president. Famously, he proclaimed "I welcome their hatred" referring to the moneyed interests of Wall Street arrayed against him. (Can anyone imagine Obama uttering such words?) Americans wanted the same kind of leadership and rhetoric in 2008. Instead, they got a placid wonk who immediately backed way from the spirit of his campaign and whose main goal seemed to be getting Republicans to like him.

    Naturally, this led to an electoral disaster and the effective end of Obama's presidency. Even if he is reelected--a big if, no matter how crazy/stupid his opponent--the Republican majority in Congress that he brought into being guarantees that no significant progress will be made in addressing urgent issues.

    Also, in 1944 FDR was CinC of a war against fascists bent on genocide that threatened the existence of western civilization--not worried about a few car bombs planted by a loose network of a few hundred terrorists worldwide.

    Sure, I'll vote for him. But he's an incompetent jerk.

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

    by LongTom on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:03:15 PM PST

  •  Obama = FDR (10+ / 0-)

    Okaay. No more complaints with people comparing the 2 right?

    Due respect, hate these type of posts.

    It is a cheap way to turn disagreement about a policy into a referendum on Naderism and the like.

    Really dumbs the discussion down.

    YMMV.

  •  If Japanese Americans don't pose a real threat... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2

    ...then why are they in camps?

    Our government knows what its doing here.

    Look - FDR has delivered results - we haven't had any domestic terror attacks, and there is no credible risk of some kind of "national security state" getting out of control.  These measures are sober, and reasonable in scope.

    We FDR some slack here.  

    The real debate should be when to start locking up German Americans...

    2010: An Unforced Error Odyssey

    by Minerva on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:13:57 PM PST

  •  Oh Jesus H... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Into The Woods, dark daze, itsbenj

    Cenk writes a diary, so a "Waaa! Cenk insulted my BFF!" diary appears in response.

    How predictable.

    Rule of thumb: If it's advertised on TV, you probably shouldn't buy it.

    by VictorLaszlo on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:18:57 PM PST

  •  Other Than Minor Differences Now 'Exactly Like' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, emal

    WWII days.

    And we should all leap for joy (or sit down and shut up) over HF 1540 because it's (no worse than) (not as bad as) the internment of  over 100,000 Americans of Japense descent.

    That's all you've got?

    Reminds me of how we started judging Bush, being happy he was not doing as badly as he had before.  

    If you set the bar too low, it disappears into the dirt.  

    Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

    by Into The Woods on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:21:38 PM PST

  •  Well done! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qm1pooh
  •  Dewey even tried to restrict voting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qm1pooh

    by soldiers, along with cooperative Republican governors in other states!

  •  This diary is too clever by half. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2, emal, itsbenj, IM, CJnyc, enhydra lutris

    (And I do acknowledge it IS well written and clever.)

    The diary invites us to ignore that Obama should be judged withing the societal context of 2011.

    FDR was a man of his time, and should be evaluated accordingly. Obama is President NOW, seven decades later. Seven decades of evolving norms and awareness.

    I will no more give Obama a pass for indefinite detention NOW than I would excuse a contemporary politician's advocacy of slavery on the basis of "Hey, our Founding Fathers were slave holders TOO!"

  •  brilliant! count me in! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qm1pooh

    Is GlowNZ back yet?

    by edrie on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:42:36 PM PST

  •  I find it awfully interesting how many (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, itsbenj, enhydra lutris

    people have apparently accepted internment, because FDR was a Democrat?

    WTF???

    So according to this diary, if I have the logic correct, if President Obama were to start interning Mexicans and Muslims, the vast majority of Kossacks would accept that for the good of the party?  Let's be very clear.  That is what this diary says taken to its logical conclusion.

    Maybe I am part of the wrong community?

    I don't find anything funny about this diary.  Nothing at all.  

    Both this diary and Cenk's have a lot left to be desired.  But lets be clear...each and every person just accepting the status quo is complicit.

    There is a way to protest and still understand that the re-election of President Obama is critical.

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:43:46 PM PST

    •  The point of the diary is not that internment (0+ / 0-)

      is OK because FDR did it too. The diarist is trying to point out that every president, including FDR who is considered one of the greatest, can be criticized for decisions and actions taken along the way.

       History judges each president based on what he was able to do to improve the lives of Americans during his term. And using that guideline, I think Obama will fare quite well when measured against other Democratic presidents. I'm sure there were many Dems who were not happy with FDR at the time either but that doesn't lessen his accomplishments.

      •  Actually, yes it is that internment was ok, and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal, Thomasina

        that this new law is way cool too.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:27:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nonsense...that is the exact point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal

        it implies directly that anyone that would choose to make a protest vote over FDR's internment program was naive and not pragmatic under the guise of snark.  

        There is no other way to read it.  It is the reason for the diary.  

        Your rationalization is intended to make you and others who recced the diary feel better.   But it doesn't change the diaries logic even if it wasn't the diarist intent.

        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

        by justmy2 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 04:17:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would you say then, that America would have been (0+ / 0-)

          better off if FDR had not been re-elected in 1944?

          •  Did the earlier diary say America would be better (0+ / 0-)

            off if Obama were not elected?

            Nice try...

            Now if you want, I will address the actual point...

            Would I have been willing to consider a protest vote in an uncontested Democratic primary to mark my opposition to the internment of innocent human beings after seeing it happen previously with another Democratic President, as the case would be if you took this diary to its conclusion?

            Yes.

            How about you?  Is you primary vote so valuable and your loyalty to the Democratic party so firm that you would not take any action to mark you disagreement with internment of Muslims due to a feared threat?  

            I assume yes, because that is the argument that you are making.  The other side is so vile that vile behavior by your side is acceptable and unworthy of any action.

            I have no problem stating that I don't fall anywhere remotely close to that category.

            "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

            by justmy2 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:08:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am commenting on THIS diary. And, as a (0+ / 0-)

              Canadian, my only stake in this is what happens to a good friend and trading partner. I fear that if Republicans take over all three branches of your govenment it will lead to a lot of damage that will take many, many years to overcome.
              But, if you are willing to take that chance, that is up to you. We will have to just agree to disagree.

              •  Did you read the last diary? (0+ / 0-)

                Because if you didn't this thread probably won't make sense to you.  

                You are the only one arguing about whether voting for Either in the general has an impact.  The diaries are about a primary.  Now this diary pretends otherwise as a rhetorical device but the question at hand is about a primary vote and the logic of accepting internment.

                "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                by justmy2 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:37:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read both diaries. And I disagree that this (0+ / 0-)

                  one is only about internment. Or that it is only about a primary. What I took from this diary is that even a great president like FDR made some questionable decisions, but that didn't stop him from doing a lot of other things that helped the country immensely. You seem to see it only as a rebuttal to the first diary.

                  But as I said, we disagree about this so there is nothing to be gained from further discussion.

          •  strawman alert (0+ / 0-)

            "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

            by justmy2 on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:09:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  the biggest difference (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2

    Between the two diaries is the fact that perhaps several dozens of people didn't come into this one who after reading the title and immediately descend upon this one and ridicule, hiderate, name call and throw all sorts of invectives and names at you for being a loyal supporter of the current president and the status quo.

    No those that find this  post offensive or just disagree with its premise entirely have either just shied away from commenting or reccing it and have just tried to be polite in being deliberate in making factual points with their dissent against the diary itself....

    That to me is what really speaks volumes and is the most noticeable here...

    The diary is too clever by half, but to me, you are missing the point of the other diary that so many others who skimmed it to,which was about trying to push the president to the left by suggesting Iowa caucus democratic primary voters vote uncommitted ......that was all that was being suggested...not even close to asking people to vote against him in the general...just not commit yet to him yet in their primary caucus...that was all.

    Couching this diary by saying no one is perfect and also suggesting we would never be happy with any president..well so what...what is wrong with pushing our presidents and leaders to do the right thing all the time and holding them accountable to act in ways in which we wish them to act? Why is that wrong...as roosevelt said about presidential criticism...

    "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

    "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
    May 7, 1918

    The Plutocratic States of America, the best government the top 1% and corporations can buy. We are the 99%-OWS.

    by emal on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:46:14 PM PST

  •  Damn skippy. Best analogy EVAR. (0+ / 0-)

    And there were, indeed, screechy unpleasables at that time, saying exactly this. They were wrong then, and ours are wrong now.

  •  Lock up the muslims! Somebody else did it to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, CJnyc, enhydra lutris, justmy2

    Japanese Americans 60 years ago, so it must be ok to do it to the minority boogeyman of today!

    Listen to yourself.  If President Obama decides we need to lock up all muslims by executive order, you're arguing we should support him regardless.

    Right.  Got it.

    Guess what?  I don't give a flying fuck if some Democrat did similar things in the past.  I can't oppose gross, murderous, immoral abuses of power in some earlier time.  I'm limited to opposing them in the time I actually exist in.

    What FDR did it it was WRONG.  It's a permanent and shameful mark on his legacy.  And now President Obama's abusing power today.  How the hell do you expect these things to ever stop, if you don't oppose them?  If you guarantee your support to someone abusing his/her power, what fanatsyland are you living in that those abuses will stop?

    "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

    by gila on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:10:07 PM PST

  •  Dewey wasn't so bad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thomasina

    The problem is not that Obama isn't FDR.  

    The problem is that Willard Romney - I won't even talk of the others - isn't Dewey. Or even George Romney.

    Back in the day republicans nominated people like Dewey or Wilkie or Eisenhower. And not someone from the Taft wing.

    And the leading light of the moderate wing Earl Warren, did support, if not push internment in California. But he was also, well, Earl Warren.

    And now, if I may paraphrase another famous american politician, what are you doing to do about it?

  •  So, where is your "Korematsu" tag? (0+ / 0-)

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:29:38 PM PST

N in Seattle, maxomai, fladem, dwellscho, Trix, dragonlady, lowkell, SeanF, askew, Better Days, Adam B, zonk, Jeff Simpson, mem from somerville, madmsf, wytcld, bosdcla14, TheGreatLeapForward, Shockwave, red moon dog, Walt starr, bumblebums, Birdman, tarminian, Delilah, concernedamerican, mmacdDE, sarahnity, benheeha, highacidity, KMc, Aquarius40, itskevin, Dracowyrm, Cedwyn, Serendipity, SneakySnu, edrie, TexDem, virginislandsguy, leevank, synth, chrismorgan, NYFM, CarbonFiberBoy, kismet, lulu57, Mark Warner is God, zerelda, jj32, Curt Matlock, randallt, parryander, tomjones, BigDuck, Mikecan1978, boran2, sebastianguy99, decitect, G2geek, Bluesee, radarlady, blueyedace2, jiffypop, unclejohn, chimene, citizenx, terrypinder, Gary Norton, aaraujo, LABobsterofAnaheim, quaoar, blue jersey mom, Steve in Urbana, Savvy813, Floja Roja, Seeds, JanF, dannyinla, BobzCat, edwardssl, tobendaro, Themistoclea, smokeymonkey, fou, philipmerrill, SadieSue, looty, plf515, oxley, zeke7237, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Statusquomustgo, Quicklund, Nulwee, cpresley, Babylon, donnamarie, Dartagnan, puakev, Mary Mike, Matt Z, rkelley25, FischFry, dizzydean, JDWolverton, skymutt, Sixty Something, NewDealer, FG, lineatus, VL Baker, Therapy, pamelabrown, smartdemmg, qm1pooh, jjohnjj, punkdavid, tethys, dzog, Diogenes2008, lissablack, ibinreno, maggiejean, Bule Betawi, Fonsia, Fogiv, BoiseBlue, lilsky, I give in to sin, buddhistfist13, TobyRocksSoHard, mdmslle, Ryan in Iowa, LincolnDuncan, citisven, French Imp, Vita Brevis, Larsstephens, dtruth, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, smileycreek, pyegar, TFinSF, LaughingPlanet, gramofsam1, gene1138, on board 47, eb23, skyfox, FrankCornish, Lost and Found, BoxNDox, cordgrass, Jimmm, Egalitare, NYWheeler, ladasue, MJinSM, ericlewis0, science nerd, nosleep4u, mallyroyal, Wisdumb, translatorpro, PaDemTerry, kirbybruno, Teknocore, Zutroy, itzik shpitzik, ebirch1, NormAl1792, CoExistNow, marleycat, Escamillo, BarackStarObama, jeffinfremont, ratcityreprobate, SoCalSal, zenox, RLMiller, leftykook, jham710, Chitown Kev, ChiTownDenny, weatherdude, HamptonRoadsProgressive, NoFortunateSon, anodnhajo, angry marmot, We Won, charliehall2, SilverWillow, Drobin, S F Hippie, Deep Texan, FreeSpeaker, Halandri, nerve, tytalus, Anton Bursch, raina, Arilca Mockingbird, Patrick is Lucky, ehstronghold, allensl, mygreekamphora, SwedishJewfish, mrdreked, Thomasina, Setsuna Mudo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site