For those who assumed Barack Obama's talk of reaching out was empty rhetoric, among many other examples there's this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular posts
-
Nothing can be said about last week’s presidential debate (debacle, more like) that hasn’t already been. So I will. Trump lied with every ... -
The assassination attempt and reactions to it are deeply depressing, foretelling a grim future. The most disgusting responses from politic... -
I’m trying to measure this feeling of hope and enthusiasm against the reality that it’s an uphill battle for a woman to become president; ... -
I t’s over. No thinking person will vote for Trump now. The catastrophe is out of the bagman. How? At a gathering of oil executives at Mar-a... -
In a country gone nuts, providing facts is as effective as bailing a boat with a salad fork. Nevertheless, patriotism and decades of doctori...
Larry Tribe and Cass Sunstein, as well as Charles Oglethorpe, all volunteered Obama's consistent method of seeking communication with those who hold disparate points of view. However - I would add a caveat to that, based on my own observations: he seeks out those with disparate points of view if they are perceived by him to be bases of power and control. Not so much for the little people, who are used as the millions of fan blades in his jet propulsion system.
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned not with his seeking out and communicating with those "across the aisle". The more communication, discussion and understanding he achieves b the concerned parties, the better. But I am gravely concerned that he is also gearing up to cast asunder those parts of the Constitution that have been shredded by Cheney/BushCo in the name of bipartisanship.
He has an extraordinarily lead weight agenda of remediation and correction just to return to baseline pre-Bush status. I'm not convinced that with the 11th Congress being the still obstructionist Republican dead-enders and a complicit corp/military kissing Democratic perpetual fundraiser majority, that the public interest will be served.
He's already made ammends with his most mortal enemy...
ReplyDeleteAnnie: I don't share your concerns of him "casting asunder" the Constitution, nor of his ignoring "the little people." There will be no person who is 100% satisfied with what he does or proposes to do, nor will he be able to address every issue of importance to every group.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, share your view about Congress.
Or, to put it another way: I think Obama is up to the task. The question is, are we?
Few of us on the left are surprised at Obama selling... er... reaching out to the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteWe're still waiting, however for Obama to pay more than the most token lip service to progressives. On the economy and on the wars in the Middle East, he's just pursuing (albeit competently) the fundamental conservative Republican pro war, pro big business agenda.
I suppose it's slightly better to have a competent conservative in office rather than an incompetent, sociopathic conservative, but we on the left would like to see more than the mere absence of insanity.
Time will tell, won't it? What's more progressive than investing in green energy, rebuilding schools, striving for health care for all? I'm willing 1) to wait and see, and 2) to concede that to do the really big things, he can't be at the far end of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'd love to see a clear repudiation of Reaganomics and Bushlaw. Unlike Bush, however, who saw his election -- in which he lost the popular vote and was "elected" by those activist judges he so dislikes -- as a "mandate," Obama, who does indeed, it can be argued, have a mandate, chooses to begin by engaging everyone.
In these times, I for one think it's the right approach.
I'm preparing myself for disappointment, but, as I said above, I think it's more likely to come from Congress, and "we the people" than from him.
Sid wrote both:
ReplyDelete"I don't share your concerns of him 'casting asunder' the Constitution"
and:
"in which he lost the popular vote"
Sticking with your "popular vote" argument shows an ignorance about the Constitution. It says nothing about the "popular vote".
And btw--he kicked Kerry's ass in the popular vote.
Anonymous (and rightly so): How, exactly, does the fact that the constitution doesn't mention popular vote change the fact that he lost the popular vote? The constitution doesn't mention the weather today, either, but the sun is out.
ReplyDeleteYou've never met a point you didn't miss. I was talking about the idea of mandate, and the behavior of presidents and presidents-elect based on that perception. In that, you see ignorance of the Constitution. In your comment, I see simple but all-encompassing ignorance. So much so, in fact, that this may be the last one like this to which I'll respond, let alone publish. I'm fine with arguments. But this sort of off-point stupidity adds nothing to the discussion. You want to see yourself in print? Try commenting with something useful and/or relevant. Or get your own blog. It's free. Otherwise, AMF.