Skip to main content

I'm going to attempt to make myself as clear as possible, although, to some, that might do no good considering I made it extremely clear in my last entry that I was a girl and someone still proceeded to refer to me as "he". Don't comment on something you clearly are not reading all the way through... or just don't read it. I have no preference.

I'm venting about something that's been bothering me far too much about people I look up to. I don't believe there is right or wrong as far as accuracy goes with this... I am merely pointing out what should be obvious.

I try to follow as many progressive Facebook pages as I can, as I often repost their pictures in attempts to have my friends read about current events. Relevant or not, I follow Occupy Wall Street's pages as well as the pages that have stemmed from their initial movement because I truly admire their message to this day. I cannot think of a single thing that I've disagreed with them on up until recently. However, they posted a picture not too long ago that really doesn't make any sense at all.

I must specify that this was posted on Occupy Portland's Facebook page, not Occupy Wall Street's. It was a picture of Obama and George W. standing next to each other while the caption on the photo said "Is it Possible for Obama and Bush to be Terrible? You don't just have to pick one..." The photo of course implied that they are one in the same. I felt only disappointment for the people I identify with the most in this world and this diary is directed towards anyone who honestly agrees with that statement.

I have to say it. This is just about one of the stupidest and most unintelligent things I've seen Occupy post and if you're smart, then you should know far more than me that it is a ridiculous thing to honestly compare President Obama to Former Governor Bush. Yes, Obama has issued drone strikes that have killed civilians, which is nothing I condone. Was the healthcare bill anywhere near what it should have been? Of course not. But I honestly don't know what people expect from this guy with a congress that literally refuses to do it's job. Obama is not doing all the things he wants to do AT ALL because he simply cannot and I really don't know what is so hard for people to understand about that. That is what the executive orders are for and Obama STILL has yet to issue as many as Bush did.

Let's understand what it means to say that President Obama is anything like Governor Bush.

President Obama:
- was a constitutional law professor
- the first African American President of the Harvard Law review
- someone who chose being a community organizer for $10,000 a year in Chicago over much higher paying opportunities
- someone who ENDED the war in Iraq, a war which he spoke out against to begin with (despite any current happenings)
- someone who came out before an election in favor of same-sex marriage rights
- someone who literally saved the American car industry
- someone who got rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell
- a former senator with one of the most liberal voting records
- someone who got healthcare passed while he had the chance
- someone who raised taxes on upper income earners
- implemented new EPA regulations meant to drastically cut Carbon emissions
- Discusses income equality and endorsed minimum wage raises for the entire country
- Attempted to make background checks required for people who seek gun ownership

Obama was also left with a financial crisis the moment he took office, meanwhile Bush went back to Texas to apparently pain self portraits. The stock market was in the 6,000's when President Obama took office and just topped 17,000 for the first time in history. As Obama took office, we were losing roughly 800,000 jobs a month and 288,000 jobs were created in this past month along with over 40 months of consecutive job growth previously. I don't pull this out of thin are, the facts are the facts.

President Obama is NOT Bush.

Now allow me to give the other side.

Governor Bush:
- Was a "C" student at Yale
- sent our soldiers to die in a "fictitious war for fictitious reasons" (I'm quoting Michael Moore, I know.)
- put two wars on a credit card and sunk this nations economy into what was almost another depression
- someone whose negligent and delayed reaction to Hurricane Katrina left those in New Orleans to suffer for weeks
- someone who did absolutely nothing proactive on terrorism until after 9/11 even with intelligence that Osama Bin Laden had plans to attack the United States
- Gave two major tax cuts to the wealthy which only added to the deficit
- Had over two hundred billion in surplus from Clinton when he took office and left Obama with an enormous debt AND deficit

I could go on, but I'll stop before I get too boring.

There are many things that Obama has done that I disagree with. He is NOT a perfect president. However, I look back on what we had before and am much more thankful for the things President Obama has accomplished and tried to accomplish than anything Governor Bush ever did. Would Bush have even proposed healthcare reform let alone gotten one passed? Get real. 8 million more people have healthcare now that did not before because of this President.

So, basically what that post said was that things are just as bad now as they were when Bush was in office? President Obama's decisions have matched that of Bush's? Are there really people that think this way? Let me just say that there is no sane person that wants Bush back in office. My apologies for the blanket statement, you can argue with me if you feel so inclined.

Moreover, if you believe that Bush and Obama are both just as bad as the other, you are just flat out wrong and I am disgusted that, statistically, people seem to think Obama is actually worse. President Obama is 100 times the President that Bush was and that's really the only point I wanted to make.

The End.

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

  •  This Obama guy. I voted (6+ / 0-)

    for him twice.  

    Still like him pretty well.  

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:02:05 AM PDT

  •  He is MY President, too. (6+ / 0-)

    I voted for him three times -- in the primary against HRC and in both elections.  I was in his camp when he gave the Keynote Speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.    

  •  Bush and Obama are vastly different (8+ / 0-)

    on social & cultural issues. On issues of economics, poverty, income inequality, drones, massive illegal dragnet spying of American citizens,  and things that generally affect the poor he is slightly better or worse than Bush.

    It is a fair comparison if couched in context & facts. Unfair if it is a blanket statement.

    I say this as an occupier.

    “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

    by Tool on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:29:15 AM PDT

  •  Don't let that poll effect you. (4+ / 0-)

    It used a very conservative/republican sample.
    As for those on the Left that make this claim,

    " Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos "

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:43:40 AM PDT

    •  One of the stupidest things Kos has said (5+ / 0-)

      His 2003 self is rolling over in its grave. Self parody is sad. Yes it is dumb to say the parties are exactly the same on every issue - but it is dangerous and willfully ignorant to not acknowledge when their rhetoric is different but the outcomes the same.  

      “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

      by Tool on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 09:54:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No one ever argues that (6+ / 0-)

      People just pretend we do when we point out similarities.  This diary is a perfect example.

      The diarist reacted to the statement:

      Is it Possible for Obama and Bush to be Terrible? You don't just have to pick one...
      By arguing against this one:
      So, basically what that post said was that things are just as bad now as they were when Bush was in office? President Obama's decisions have matched that of Bush's?
      One couldn't ask for a more textbook, not to mention ham-fisted exemple of the straw man logical fallacy.

      Now pepper in a little argumentum ad-homenim (emphasis mine):

      if you're smart, then you should know far more than me that it is a ridiculous thing to honestly compare President Obama to Former Governor Bush.
      And in the very next sentence, she acknowledges something Obama has done that is, in fact, terrible:
      Yes, Obama has issued drone strikes that have killed civilians, which is nothing I condone.
      This is one of many policy positions, actions, and non-actions that one might find "terrible" so it hardly seems to be
      ...one of the stupidest (sic) and most unintelligent thing (sic) I've seen...
      to suggest that perhaps, as a chief executive, Obama is terrible.  Not necessarily more terrible than bush, or even as terrible, but still somewhere on the continuum of terrible.  Hence, they can in fact both be terrible without being exactly the same.

      Bush being terrible does not require Obama to not be terrible.  For example, I think most would agree that, as Obama is less terrible than Bush, Bush is less terrible than Mussolini, Polpot, or Hitler.  The fact that these were way more terrible than Bush does not suggest that Bush was a Good President.

      That's not too complicated, is it?

      May you always find water and shade.

      by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:41:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you like listening to yourself talk, huh? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bad Ass Biker, Diogenes2008

        Obama might be terrible to you. Congratulations, you have an opinion. That's my point. I do not think he is terrible. That is MY opinion.
        The quote from the photo I mentioned blatantly suggests that Obama and Bush are both equally awful and that just is not true. If you think it is, then good for you.

      •  I have no problem with drones and I think it is (0+ / 0-)

        exactly the right thing to use against Al Queda. Would you prefer our troops on the ground and carpet bombing? Hey, let's take out an entire village. He is in charge of defense and I, for one, am grateful.

        •  So civilian causualties are cool with you? (7+ / 0-)

          After all, what's a little "collateral damage" here and there?

          It ain't your loved ones dying, right?

          I bet you'd change your mind if you were in the vicinity of a drone strike. Especially if you had the "pleasure" of seeing the aftermath up close.

          It's easy for armchair warmongers to approve of drone strikes from the comfort of their own homes.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:34:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are delightful (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead

            I hope we meet at a music festival someday.

            /offtopic

            May you always find water and shade.

            by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:02:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The verdict is still out... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Whimsical Rapscallion

              ...as to whether or not I'm as big an asshole in person as I'm purported to be online. ;-)

              If I ever get over Jerry dying in 1995, perhaps we'll cross paths at one of those festivals.

              In the meantime, I can tell you that I appreciate your comment and that the feeling is mutual. In fact, I "DK followed" you awhile back as a result of your commentary on something or other, I forgot exactly what it was at the moment.

              Cheers.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

              by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 03:17:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No civilian casualties are not cool. Drones (0+ / 0-)

            lessen that number.

            •  Yes, of course. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              barleystraw, oldhippie

              There would've been twenty dead if we hadn't launched a drone strike that ended-up killing ten who'd otherwise be alive right now if not for that very same drone strike killing them.

              I'm sure they're proud to have "given their lives" to prevent ten others from joining them six feet under.

              As are their relatives still amongst the living, who would never even think of holding a grudge against the US that might manifest itself in the form of them becoming terrorists themselves.

              I'm confident they'll let bygones be bygones just as soon as they're done collecting body parts.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

              by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 02:59:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Drones mostly kill (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          unfangus, oldhippie, barleystraw, DeadHead

          innocent civilians.  Whose families would probably get mad.  And maybe join what they would now see as a resistance organization against western imperialism.  That's not very helpful, even if you don't give one shit about innocent lives taken.

          Clearly the domestic ramifications of drones are lost on you as well.

          May you always find water and shade.

          by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:43:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not cool (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead

          with anything that puts innocent people at risk. If there was an alternative way to "fight terrorism" without putting civilians lives in jeopardy, I'm all for it.

          Drones are obviously not the answer, however, I personally don't believe in the "war on terrorism" to begin with. Wars can be won. We are never going to eliminate terrorism because there are always going to be evil people in this world. Very simple.

          •  Now this is comment I can get behind. (0+ / 0-)

            As long as you're not implying that you're "settling" for drones because there isn't a better way to fight terrorism without them.

            Given the rest of your comment, I don't think that's necessarily what you meant, but, just for clarity on my part, there's always a better way than the one that kills innocent people and, in so doing, exacerbates the very problem it's trying to "solve."




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

            by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 03:59:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No to the first thing. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead

              The lives of innocent people in any situation should not be risked for any reason. To take that chance is an extremely careless tactic on Obama's part to make himself seem tougher as Commander in chief of the military. I'm a pacifist though so I'm biased on any war issue, anyway.

          •  How to fight terrorism. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead

            STOP FLYING ACROSS THE OCEAN AND BLOWING SHIT UP.

            Say sorry.

            Return all military to home.

            Apologize.

            Refrain from stealing resources.

            Announce commitment to refrain from neocolonialism.

            Stop overthrowing regimes we disagree with.

            Show contrition for past mistakes.

            I know it sounds crazy, but if you're gonna fix a problem, you have to address the root causes.

            May you always find water and shade.

            by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:11:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Why not compare them? (4+ / 0-)

    Obama is superior in every way.

  •  An intellectually lazy false equivalency. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, fou, unfangus, BMScott

    Centrist reporters have their false equivalency problem. The third party left has theirs. It's a lazy attempt to be provocative and take a cheap shot.

    There are plenty of good reasons to criticize Obama. People should realize that exaggeration about Obama being just as bad as Bush undermines any legitimate criticisms they're making.

    And spreading that kind of cynicism rarely makes people more active. It encourages people throw up their hands and do nothing.

    •  ^^^^ all good points ^^^^^ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BMScott



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:37:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The false equivelency is yours (5+ / 0-)

      Any suggestion of similarities between the two is immediately attacked as a suggestion that the two are identical.  it  happens over and over again, and while I've heard (read) countless dozens accused of saying "Obama is exactly like bush" of "Every bit as bad as bush" I have yet to see anyone actually say it.

      May you always find water and shade.

      by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:45:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That isn't the point. (0+ / 0-)

        Just because you haven't heard anyone say it does not mean it is not said. And I don't mean by Republicans either.

        It's also frustrating when liberals bash Obama and point out all his wrongs when, first of all, NO ONE actually understand the difficulties of being the POTUS even though they pretend to. I cannot even imagine the ridiculously hard decisions Obama has to make on a daily basis and neither can you.

        But, more importantly, what would be your genius alternative?

        Would you rather Romney was elected then? What would be a considered a good president according to YOUR standards? REALISTICALLY, what do YOU suggest we do about this "terrible" president? Hmm.

        You know what? Let's just keep voting for Ralph Nader since that works out so well each time.

        •  New material. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldhippie

          You need some.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:37:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is the point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldhippie, DeadHead
          Just because you haven't heard anyone say it does not mean it is not said. And I don't mean by Republicans either.
          Of all the accusations, No accuser has provided any evidence that anyone has claimed bush and obama are exactly the same.  I invite you do so now.
          It's also frustrating when liberals bash Obama and point out all his wrongs when, first of all, NO ONE actually understand the difficulties of being the POTUS even though they pretend to. I cannot even imagine the ridiculously hard decisions Obama has to make on a daily basis and neither can you.
          You didn't give bush a pass because being president is hard.  Why does Obama get one?
          But, more importantly, what would be your genius alternative?
          ridicule is not an effective gotv strategy  but I already said that.
          Would you rather Romney was elected then?
          Clearly, it's the only reasonable assumption.
           
          What would be a considered a good president according to YOUR standards?
          Put simply, anyone who would fight for the common people against the oppression and excess of the super-rich.
          REALISTICALLY, what do YOU suggest we do about this "terrible" president?

          Wait.  We have an opportunity to nominate an actual progressive in 2016.  Probably gonna try to help that happen
          You know what? Let's just keep voting for Ralph Nader since that works out so well each time.
          Thought experiment:  Forget for a moment any notions of "viability" force fed you by the corporate media and ask yourself what it would have looked like if the impossible had happened and he'd won?  

          Seriously, What if someone like Nader actually became president? Would that be so bad?

          May you always find water and shade.

          by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:59:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  omg (0+ / 0-)

            NO, IT WOULDN'T BE BAD. THAT IS MY POINT. I love Ralph Nader! But you're doing the "what if" thing. Nader cannot win, man. Don't you get that? It would be so amazing if Ralph Nader had a chance, but he has none because no attention is given to the independent party, only the Democrats and Republicans. American will also not elect someone who is openly too far to one side.

            That is why we get stuck with either one party or the other each time, I'm only trying to be realistic about Obama. I am merely suggesting that he is the better alternative to what we have to work with now and to what we had before, but, AGAIN, that's my own view.

            I really do not feel as though I'm saying anything you don't already know.

            •  Here's my point (0+ / 0-)

              As long as people like you go around shouting that we can't possibly do any better, we won't.  you let corporate media decide who the viable candidates are, and it's hard to be surprised when we have to choose Lo2E.

              We need to change our perception of what's "realistic"

              Americans aren't stupid, they are lied to.  We dismantle the corporate media, break up the banks, and get private money out of the election process, I guarantee Americans will elect someone progressive.  lot's of someones.  issue polls have large majorities of americans supporting the very issues we perceive as impossible because we're hypnotized by the damn TV.

              I understand your POV, and I've held it.  However, I am no longer satisfied with a slightly kinder version of oligarchy.  it's not Obama, it wasn't even bush.  it's the whole rotten system, and so long as we are determined to act only within these narrow parameters, we will continue to be under the jackboot of the plutocracy as they become more and more practiced at convincing us we're free.  

              I'm done with that.  The only chance of fixing it from the inside is for liberals and progressives and populists to take over the party and start shaking shit up.  That won't happen through shouting down criticisms of politicians who do not fit that description.

              I mean, it's that or the pitchforks.

              May you always find water and shade.

              by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 03:53:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Not hard to find. (0+ / 0-)

        The accusation that they're the same, or accusing Obama as being worse than Bush is thrown around pretty casually. A quick search of DK shows many examples. It's unthinking cynicism on auto-pilot.
        I see it on economic issues and banks the most. It's usually done by 1) Blaming Obama for the bailout Bush passed, and 2) pretending that Obama didn't pass the most significant re-regulation of banks, wall street, and lending since the New Deal. It takes a lot of willful ignorance.

  •  They need not be exactly the same (5+ / 0-)

    to have similarities.  

    Both governed, in their own special way, for the interests of big money over the interests of the people.  Doesn't make them the same.  It does make them both corporatists.

    May you always find water and shade.

    by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:09:42 AM PDT

    •  Obama does not govern for the interests of big (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MajerliActually

      money over people. Wall street and big business loathe Obama much as you do. The bailouts could have been better handled but they are done. He is no corporatist. The bailouts were in motion before his inauguration and are over.  To republicans and corporatists he is a socialist and responsible for class warfare. Your corporatist theory is pure CT.  Don't bring up ACA as a 'giveaway to the insurance industry'. It is a combination Heritage Foundation and single payer, expanded Medicaid, and is covering millions. Obama is not a socialist and like Krugman and others recognizes that we are in a capitalist economy and he has tried to apply social programs, wage increase, education, healthcare,labor protections,regulations,taxes etc. to that economy for the equality and benefit of the poor and working classes.  

      •  Yes, he certainly does. (7+ / 0-)

        DEA raids on legal medical marijuana grows (I acknowledge that he has recently stopped that), and not so much as an indictment for the bankers who brought down the economy.

        Low tax rates on capital, High tax rates on labor.

        Defending an illegal mass spying mechanism while hunting down those who revealed its existence.

        Appointing industry executives (from geithner (GS) to taylor (monsanto) to wheeler (National Cable Television Association (NCTA)  Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)).regulate their own industries. (Treasury, FDA, FCC)

        Renewing the USA PATRIOT ACT, and taking single payer off the table before health care negotiations even began.

        Good for big money, bad for people.  This is not an exhaustive list.

        May you always find water and shade.

        by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:05:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All of those criticisms have been asked and (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MajerliActually, Fabienne

          answered. We do not agree. NSA is legal, that is the problem. Taxes are controlled by the legislature. They have blocked most of Obama's tax initiatives. Single payer was off the table because they could not whip the votes, period. Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. We have had to unpack this nonsense on a daily basis, give it a rest.  

          •  NSA is in egregious violation (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tool, DeadHead, dfarrah

            of the 4th amendment.  Not legal.

            Right about geithner.  he didn't work for goldman, he just gave them billions of dollars

            I notice you didn't address monsanto in the FDA or the NCTS and CTIA in the FCC.  or the patriot act.

            Or not indicting the banksters.

            Ah, but since I was mistaken about TG I can't possibly be right about anything ever again.

            May you always find water and shade.

            by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:34:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is not illegal as long as there are warrants (0+ / 0-)

              and/or subpoenas. It has been gone over tooth and nail, not only by Obama but you boy GG. He doesn't report those findings. Hypotheticals and hyperbole. Read the documents yourself. The Patriot Act and FISA are veto proof. The president is one of three branches. Bankers have been indicted and there have been settlements. We don't behead bankers, although I wouldn't have minded seeing a few in jail.

              As far as appointments, all I know is, republicans have made appointments impossible and these guys were acceptable to the republicans. But you don't get it. If we don't control the house, appointments that favor us aren't happening. All of your rabid opposition for the dems and Obama doesn't help a damn thing. You don't push the party to the left, you negate it.

              •  There are no warrants (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                supported by oath or affirmation, describing exactly what is sought.

                None.

                Therefore, Illegal.  

                Vetoproof means wide democratic support.  That is the problem.  If democrats were democrats, that wouldn't be veto proof.  it wouldn't pass.  it wouldn't even get to the senate floor.  Even so, a symbolic veto would mean something.  Saying no to that, however little good it would do, would engender trust.

                But no.  We only do what's politically "possible", and we let the corporate media decide what that means.  Can't keep doing it.  you can't.

                Appointments are not impossible.  You can keep sending the same ones back.  you can make a huge fuss.  you can end the fucking filibuster.  

                But no. We only do what's politically "possible", and we let the corporate media decide what that means.  Can't keep doing it.  you can't.

                it could as easily be argued that you negate the democratic party by protecting their "honor" as they slowly become republicans.  It certainly doesn't move it to the left.

                May you always find water and shade.

                by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:04:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  ... (0+ / 0-)

      He was a community organizer.. that's essentially a full-time protestor... but he's a corporatist?

      To suggest Obama has any type of corporate values is honestly a joke. Wall Street hates Obama as someone already pointed out.

      •  Wut? Have you ever read any of the budgets (4+ / 0-)

        that have come out of the White House? Then google and read any of the progressive caucuses budgets that they have released over the years. Just read the bullet points if it is overwhelming. They are nothing alike.  Take a guess which one advocates for the people and the other for corporations. Obama is called a corporatist because there are observable, verifiable, & unequivocal facts that demonstrates his administration has put corporate welfare over the welfare of the people. I wish Obama was an economic populist. His stances on education, civil rights, spying, unions, banking( a fraction of white collar crimes have been prosecuted than under Bush and Clinton in spite the 2007 collapse)  are all decidedly corporatist. What name would you have us use? Corporate friendly? Business savvy?

        I  voted for him in 2008 and against Romney in 2012 and wish we had a Stigliz instead of a Geithner,  a Krugman over a Summers, an actual teacher over charter school Duncan and actual progressives in power over third way.

        It is only calling a spade a spade.

        “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

        by Tool on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:12:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's no FDR either...no LBJ...on Kennedy... (4+ / 0-)

    he's no Nixon either.

    In fact, according to Obama himself, he is more right wing than Nixon.

    •  Obama is better than all named and we are proud (4+ / 0-)

      democrats. See you, or not, at the polls.

      •  You aren't emotionally invested in Obama... (2+ / 0-)

        or anything, are you?

        Obama = (FDR + LBJ + JFK) * 100




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

        by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:43:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. I am a democrat. I have been committed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          exlrrp

          ever since I cast that disastrous vote for Nader. I am going to stay within the party and fight for what I want.

          FDR left black folks out of SS & wouldn't push anti-lynching legislation, LBJ Viet Nam, and Kennedy is just dreaming'. So "Hell yeah!"

          •  Correction: (0+ / 0-)

            So,second thought, Hell yeah!

          •  If you're a Democrat... (7+ / 0-)

            then why do you make excuses for a Democratic president when he acts like a Republican?

            And why is it that whenever you see people criticizing him for not acting like a Democrat, you automatically assume they are "libertarians" who aren't Democrats and are working against the mission of this site?

            Don't you want to help make Obama a better president? That takes criticism, not cheering and excusing his mistakes simply because he has a 'D' after his name.




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

            by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:49:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh i know (0+ / 0-)

              A republican would most certainly agree that Obama acts like a republican, definitely... ?

              If Obama acts like a republican then my words are very useless at this point.

              I'm realistic. I'm not into bashing someone I voted for because they can't be liberal enough and then continue to vote for them again. His mistakes are not excused, but people like you are not happy no matter whose in office. You want the people that are never going to get elected. So have fun with that.

              •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dfarrah
                A republican would most certainly agree that Obama acts like a republican, definitely... ?
                Of course they wouldn't, nowadays. The Republicans today aren't the same as the Republicans of yesteryear. Not a day goes by that they don't flat-out oppose the very same policies they supported themselves in the past. The 'D' after his name is just as responsible for reflexive opposition in them as it is for the reflexive support found in unprincipled, hyper-partisan Democrats.
                If Obama acts like a republican then my words are very useless at this point.
                He doesn't always act like one, it's just that on some things he's doing what they would likely do, only he's making it more palatable to the Democratic base, which is arguably more dangerous, because if a Republican were doing these things, Democrats would be united in opposition. As it stands now, we have people like yourself apparently, telling people like me I should be applauding policies I would be against no matter which party they came from.  
                I'm realistic. I'm not into bashing someone I voted for because they can't be liberal enough and then continue to vote for them again.
                I gathered that. You're a "set it and forget it" pragmatist. I was too, at one time. Ironically, it was Obama himself who served as the impetuous for my less "nuanced" approach. Besides, I'm just taking him up on his suggestion that we — those who elected him to office — hold him accountable for his actions as president.

                The only people who seem to object to that happening are emotionally-invested sycophants who aren't interested in having their bubbles burst.

                His mistakes are not excused,
                Sure they are. How else do you explain the fact that some of the very same people who were outraged at Bush's NSA/surveillance abuses are now issuing a collective yawn, even going so far as to actively encourage others to join them in their complacency, now that Obama is continuing, and even expanding, those same activities?
                but people like you are not happy no matter whose in office.
                Yep. In case you haven't noticed, time is of the essence. Do you think Obama gives a shit how many bloggers are giving him compliments? Do you think people who are hurting are throwing parties every time he makes a nice speech?
                You want the people that are never going to get elected.
                I do? I don't recall ever discussing my preferred politicians and candidates with you, so, I must conclude that you are just trying to put me in a box based on some stereotypical caricature of a "Lefty" you've created for yourself to use when situations like this come up.
                So have fun with that.
                Nothing fun about not having the ability to bury one's head in the sand. I'll try, though.




                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 07:05:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  FDR and LBJ had Democratic super-majorities. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama has been to the right of Congress during his entire time in office, including when Democrats controlled both houses. There's every reason to believe that with the kind of Congress they had, Obama would have a progressive legislative agenda even more impressive than LBJ or FDR. But heck, LBJ and Nixon tried to get more expansive health care laws passed and failed where Obama succeeded.

  •  I think Mussolini was better than Hitler (6+ / 0-)

    but I wouldn't have wanted to live in Italy in the late '30s/early '40s.

    Dear NSA: I am only joking.

    by Shahryar on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 10:22:51 AM PDT

  •  Bush was President too! (0+ / 0-)

    I did a little searching and found various ideas on what is technically proper, but a former President (I wish we would use President Emeritus.) usually trumps former Governors in precedence.  I would use President or former President; Governor sounds like that was as far as he got and at least to my ears sounds disrespectful (which I suppose may be your point, but I would disagree with that tactic).

    •  No, no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tool

      I understand what you're saying, but being disrespectful is not necessarily what my intention is. I call him governor Bush simply because the fact of the matter is he was not actually elected president.

      •  Oh, that? (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, I sympathize, at least in 2000.  I know there was some skepticism regarding 2004 in OH among some, but it never seemed to be seriously challenged.

        •  Well, I mean.. (0+ / 0-)

          he lost plain and simple. This is a democracy or a Republic, whatever you want to call it, and the people did not elect Bush, they elected Al Gore. That is really my only reason for calling him Governor, and that's honestly the way I've continued to address him ever since. It really isn't to be insulting or anything because if he was fairly elected, of course, I'd call him President Bush.

  •  I steer clear of Facebook. (2+ / 0-)

    After reading about how it used its subscribers as guinea pigs to see if their mood could be altered, what more do you need to know?

    •  And apparantly (0+ / 0-)
      ...to see if their mood could be altered...
      it can

      May you always find water and shade.

      by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:15:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  PCLOB, a .gov agency, acknowledges PRISM. (0+ / 0-)

        PCLOB = Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

        PRISM taps into internet traffic and takes what it wants or needs for its collection. There are people in this community hollering about Obama and they defend Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.

        The European Parliament investigated the NSA with access to the Justice Dept, Treasury Dept, Congress, and the White House.  Their report said in its findings and concerns that the political officials and authorities in the US lack control and oversight over NSA intelligence activities.

        I take my cues from the EU. There was a hearing in the German Bundestag with two of the earlier whistle blowers.
        Little by little the truth is coming out. Today they arrested somebody who was spying for the US.
        http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

        •  I'm sorry (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mark Lippman, DeadHead

          I seem to have given the impression that I disagreed.  I do not.

          May you always find water and shade.

          by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:05:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No worries. I overexplained what I was (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Whimsical Rapscallion, DeadHead

            thinking about Facebook. People do have power. The companies that are complicit with the NSA are the weak link in the system. The backlash against them has already started in the EU. Germany cancelled its federal government contract with Verizon last week. Most people in the US don't know it's about telephone metatdata. Even on this site where people should know better, some don't.

            •  This is a Democratic Site (tm) (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead, dfarrah

              For the most ardent apologists, it's their job not to know better.

              If we had a republican president, This site would be united on our side of these issues.  And very well informed about them. guaranteed.

              May you always find water and shade.

              by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 01:35:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When the Ed Snowden disclosures came out, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                some people here disrupted any discussion about the NSA programs by changing the subject to Obama. To this day, there has been very little discussion about the real topic.
                The result is inertia.

                In the EU, the NSA programs were treated like a law enforcement case to be investigated. I learned what was happening and why it was a danger. No one was lashing out at Obama or the US like they could have done. One time, Jan Albrecht, a German MEP who is one of my contacts, gave a fiery speech in debate, and he lashed out a little. When he was done, the chair of the session scolded him because the US wasn't the subject of debate, and 9 member countries have intelligence programs that need to be discontinued, too.

                Democrats have been under relentless attack for over 5 years. It takes a toll. Human nature and involuntary response make adrenaline levels rise in response to an attack. The intellect is impaired when the body is in this state. Fighting begins.

                There's plenty of room here to criticize Democrats. It's uncanny how that element barges into any NSA thread and hijacks it. When the dust settles, how much did the critics say about the NSA's practices? What did they contribute? Did they show any interest or knowledge in the specifics or did they make a lot of provocative comments that accomplish nothing?

  •  So this is what drew your ire: (6+ / 0-)
    It was a picture of Obama and George W. standing next to each other while the caption on the photo said "Is it Possible for Obama and Bush to be Terrible? You don't just have to pick one..."
    ...which somehow you took to mean...
    The photo of course implied that they are one in the same.
    Without seeing the original image you're talking about, and going only on your description of it, both being "terrible" doesn't necessarily mean they are terrible in the exact same ways. Perhaps it's the lack of specificity that has you upset, because "is it possible for both to terrible " isn't saying "they are the same and are terrible for the same reasons."

    I can only imagine your reaction at seeing the image circulating around that has Obama's and Bush's faces PhotoShop-blended together.

    Look, as far as I'm concerned, Bush is the worst president in US history. Anyone who thinks Obama is tied with or replaces Bush in this regard needs help.

    That said, there's a lot of things Obama's done over the course of his presidency that put me, someone who voted once for him, and a second time against Romney, in a place I never thought I would be with him.

    He has a lot of work to in his last two years if he "wants" to even approach the utter catastrophe that was GWB.

    However, I personally won't stop comparing the two presidents in specific areas where those comparisons are both valid and necessary in order to evaluate the performance of a Democratic president.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

    by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:09:38 AM PDT

    •  I'm only saying.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead

      that, yes, it's ridiculous to put their faces on the same picture in such a vague way like that. They are so far apart on their beliefs and their issues that posting something like that and leaving it open to interpretation isn't a smart move because someone could take it the way I did and I honestly thought it offensive to be honest because I agree that Bush was the worst president we've ever had and I do not believe Obama is anywhere near as awful. But that's just me. That might not be how others see it.

      •  Okay. (2+ / 0-)

        Fair enough.

        I don't necessarily agree, but you have a right to your opinion, so I'm tipping your comment in that spirit.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

        by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:55:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  also (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead

          If I come across as though I'm being mean, not my intention. I get flustered because I first feel like I explained myself well in the Diary but then there's still confusion as to the point I'm trying to make and then things get off topic and we all start fighting about a bunch of different things. That's still probably my fault, I'm not sure. I really appreciate your comments though, thank you.

          •  Don't worry... (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think you're coming across as "mean." Even if you were, I can take it.

            In my opinion, I think you overread that image, though I understand why some might see it as you did.

            No big deal. Like I said, you have a right to your opinion, I just disagree with it.

            And I must admit, I've actually enjoyed your comments, too. It's not often I can switch from agreement to disagreement and back again in the same diary, with the same commenter. And I apologize if I've come across as combative in some of my other comments to you elsewhere. You should see me with people I don't like. ;-)




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

            by DeadHead on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 07:49:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  If You "Evaluate A Democratic President"..... (0+ / 0-)

    factor in a Republican House & Senate & FOX News & a lazy media & a right wing SC & Citizens United & the Koch boys.

    NO President has EVER had to deal w/ this crap before including inheriting two wars, an economy damn near brought to it's knees, a housing crisis, a manufacturing crisis.....plus being a black guy.

    Fair is fair.  

  •  Don't forget Bush deserted the TXANG (0+ / 0-)

    And embezzled his last 55 days pay

    But I like comparing Obama to Bush, it always makes me feel I voted for the right person

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:27:04 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site