Barack Obama II

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, before all the usual U.S. politics thread posters run my thread to pages going on about stuff that should be in the U.S. politics thread, let me restate the intended topic here:

Did Barack Obama sell out?

If not, is that because you think he's always been a sellout? If not, and you actually still believe the guy is out there trying to do the right thing for the country, tell us why you think that.

If so, when did this happen? When he decided to run for the Senate in 1995? During the first campaign? During his term? And tell us why you think it happened then.

I have an opinion. I think he has not sold out. I think this because if you look at things going on in the federal bureaucracy, as directed by the White House, away from the cameras and Congress, you can see an administration trying hard to fix things that are important but could never, ever be subject enough to soundbites to work as fodder for the campaign, but make a large difference, e.g. "I eliminated the mandatory OF-612 that made it a pain the ass to apply for government jobs, and created needless paperwork in reviewing federal jobs, and ultimately resulted in thousands of qualified people being rejected for federal jobs because they forgot to fill out the address of their junior high school, or "I expanded the federal telework program, so federal employees don't get to rejoice every "snow day" like little elementary school kids whenever the federal buildings close down due to weather."

I can't understand why you'd bother with that kind of stuff if you weren't really trying to fix things. The Bush administration sure didn't.

I think Obama has made concessions to Republicans, in order to get anything passed. I don't think that is the same as selling out.

I will define "selling out" for a politician, as placing the importance of your re-election against the good of the country. For instance, if 90% of the people polled as wanting to go to war with Iran, but the President did not think, having the greater information at his disposal that he does, that we should go to war with Iran, then, if he was not a sellout, he would not.

If he was a sellout, he would. He might not tell himself that it was the only reason, but he would become more susceptible to logic espoused by people with the last name "Wolfowitz."

Which brings me to an even lower level of sellout - those who have directly sold out to business interests in exchange for...I can't even fathom? Post-office board positions?

I would like someone to explain that to me - what does a second term President sell out to corporate interests for? What do they get out of it? Presidential library donations?

At any rate, I am not positive that Obama is not a sell out. I am open to being convinced that he is. I am also open to being convinced that he has been so ineffective that I should vote third party.

That is what this thread is about. It is not about the finer points of the ACA, Indonesia, etc. If your post doesn't have the word "Obama" in it, it's probably not on topic.

Commence discussion do-over.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yes, he's a sellout! And anyone who says otherwise is a lying liar who lies!

:P

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

He sold out or lied on warrantless wiretapping, state secrecy and surveillance, and war. This is beyond dispute.

Why? Either the president is privy to information we aren't, and he found out the monsters coming to slay us in our beds are that scary. Or, the behind the scene's folks sat him down, told him how it's going to be, and he went along with it. So basically, cowardice.

[Tears of Lys]

It's really hard to say what level of sell-out he is. On some level, every politician must compromise their beliefs to a certain extent. Otherwise, they could never have gotten to the position they're in. Probably BO had to compromise first with other Dems. I'm sure there were things pushed on him he never thought he'd accept.

Anyway, before I go any further, it's practically impossible to answer this with any degree of certainty. We THINK we know what's going on, but in the end, we really don't. Years from now someone will write a book on the Obama presidency, parties that were intimately involved will open up, and we'll get something approaching the true story.

[S John]

Has this been posted?

Made me laugh today.

[Tears of Lys]

/threadjack

Does anyone else miss EHK particularly keenly in threads like these? :(

/end threadjack

[Snowmaiden]

I totally believe that Obama is a sell out. And I say that as someone who voted for him in 2008 and talked others into voting for him. As I pointed out in your other thread don't tell me that this is all the fault of the mean nasty Republicans and Blue Dogs when Obama himself has chosen to surround himself with Wall Street Loyalists. Those people are there for a reason and that isn't to help those of us in the 99%. And Obama chose them himself, not the Republicans. The people Obama choses to associate with tells me a lot about him.

As to why would Obama want a second term, why to build up the favors. Look at Bill Clinton, 2 terms in the 90's and now he is living the good life, surrounded by world elites. Obama can't ignore how good Clinton has it and think "Why not me too?" If he still wants to associate with the 1%ers after he leaves office, then he better help them out or else they will shun him. Now I don't know exactly when Obama sold out but it definitely happened when he appointed Timmy as the Treasury Sec. And his whole "look forward, not backward" attitude towards the banks is nothing more than a gift to Wall Street.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

fuck the "greater information" the Pres' job is to do what America wants, if 90% want to go to Iran, then we should. Thankfully we dont. Now about being a "sell out" are we talking about the books, (i suppose thats selling out, but what pres didn't have mad books) or the politics (all politicians are snakes) But I would take a sell out snake over a physco republican any day. Seriously the republican party is full of "Lannisters, Freys and Boltons)

[LuisDantas]

Considering how individual liberties have kept eroding, and how little progress has been done in economic matters, does it even matter if he sold out?

As has been pointed out on occasion, he is only nominally not a Republican at this point. Far as what he actually accomplished or failed to, he might as well be.

Maybe the hardships are basically unavoidable and the time has come for you Americans to challenge not a bad candidate or even a bad party, but the whole premise of choosing either a Democrat or a Republican.

[awesome possum]

He was able to successfully campaign for and win 1) the Democratic nomination for president and 2) the Presidency.

Of course he sold out. The important question is did it happen a decade+ ago or did he sell out specifically to run/during his run for Prez?

[TerraPrime]

I don't recall his 2008 campaign being built on, say, a platform about extracting corporations from the political process. So, I'm not sure in what sense we can call him a sell out for surrounding himself with economic advisors friendly to corporations and the finance sector hijinks.

I think he's been pretty consistent in practice with regards to Iran and Afghanistan, compared to his campaign promises. The part where he did sell out is on Gitmo, and on the open access accountability of the executive branch. Those two areas he failed to live up to his promises. Is that selling out? I guess.

But, honestly, I am totally the wrong person to be contributing to this thread. Short of killing baby kittens and eating them, there's little that Obama can do that will cause me to withdraw my support. This is not because I think he's the next Jesus Christ, mind you, but more of a fact that I think the GOP is only one trip to the Humane Society away from killing baby kittens and eating them. So really, whether Obama is a sell out or not matters little to me, in the long run.

[TerraPrime]

As has been pointed out on occasion, he is only nominally not a Republican at this point. Far as what he actually accomplished or failed to, he might as well be.

No. No. No. A hundred fucking times, no. No.

Stop saying such inane and inaccurate things.

[Fez]

fuck the "greater information" the Pres' job is to do what America wants, if 90% want to go to Iran, then we should. Thankfully we dont.

No. No, it isn't. We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The duty of elected federal officials is to uphold the constitution and to do what they think is in the best interests of the country. It is not to do whatever their constituents want them to do. Their views should certainly be taken into consideration, but they are hardly the deciding factor in what is to be done, and that's the way it should. We have a term for what happens when the mob rules, its called tyranny of the majority and it was what our entire political system, right from the very beginning, has been designed to avoid.

As for Obama, no, he isn't a sell-out. He's a center-left pragmatist who believes in a very strong executive branch and who thought that he could separate politics from governance and was therefore not nearly as effective as he could have been. However he nonetheless did accomplish a great deal and a number of his failures can be directly attributed to Republican (and blue dog Democratic the first two years) stonewalling.

[Liffguard]

As has been pointed out on occasion, he is only nominally not a Republican at this point. Far as what he actually accomplished or failed to, he might as well be.

This is admitedly coming from a limey's perspective, but just off the top of my head: massive stimulus spending, ACA, homosexuals openly serving in the military and troops out of Iraq. Would a Republican president really have done any of these?

[Shryke]

No. No, it isn't. We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The duty of elected federal officials is to uphold the constitution and to do what they think is in the best interests of the country. It is not to do whatever their constituents want them to do. Their views should certainly be taken into consideration, but they are hardly the deciding factor in what is to be done, and that's the way it should. We have a term for what happens when the mob rules, its called tyranny of the majority and it was what our entire political system, right from the very beginning, has been designed to avoid.

As for Obama, no, he isn't a sell-out. He's a center-left pragmatist who believes in a very strong executive branch and who thought that he could separate politics from governance and was therefore not nearly as effective as he could have been. However he nonetheless did accomplish a great deal and a number of his failures can be directly attributed to Republican (and blue dog Democratic the first two years) stonewalling.

I don't think he really believes in a strong exectuive. He's punted authority back to Congress on several occasions.

[LuisDantas]

fuck the "greater information" the Pres' job is to do what America wants, if 90% want to go to Iran, then we should.

Not necessarily. But then again, neither are you supposed to trust the judgement of politicians blindly, I assume.

IMO the moment in history when a President could afford to hide so much information is completely gone. Transparency is now needed more than ever before.

[LuisDantas]

This is admitedly coming from a limey's perspective, but just off the top of my head: massive stimulus spending, ACA, homosexuals openly serving in the military and troops out of Iraq. Would a Republican president really have done any of these?

In all honesty, I sure hope so. What less could you expect from any president?

And just as a reminder, you may be a "limey", but I am a cucaracho of sorts...

[Shryke]

In all honesty, I sure hope so. What less could you expect from any president?

:lol: No, the GOP wouldn't have done anything on these fronts. You can expect ALOT less from a President then what you get from Obama. ALOT less.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

:lol: No, the GOP wouldn't have done anything on these fronts. You can expect ALOT less from a President then what you get from Obama. ALOT less.

which is why its so scary that the Republicans have a shot. If Bush crippled the country than Romney will...

[Fez]

I don't think he really believes in a strong exectuive. He's punted authority back to Congress on several occasions.

In terms of crafting legislation that's certainly true. However he has taken advantage of Bush administration precedent regarding signing statements, he stretched the war powers act to the breaking point with Libya, he ordered DoJ to stop defending a federal law, he decided that pro forma sessions of congress don't count, and under his watch federal agencies have taken strong administrative action in a number of areas (in one disappointing example, having the FBI raid legal pot businesses in California).