Wouldn't it be great if Obama was using the power of the Presidency to push for progressive

goals like ending the war, stopping torture, bringing criminals to justice, reining in the predatory financial industry, bringing health care to all Americans, supporting civil rights for all Americans, restoring constitutional rights, etc....?

Instead, he follows the Bush pattern of using the power of his office to do exactly the opposite.

But still, many here defend his actions, simply because he is a "D" and "not Bush or McCain."

Myself, I wouldn't mind the use of illegitimate power for good purposes (admittedly by my definition). But watching him use his power to move rightward is very discouraging. It seems the only time he gives in is to compromise with the GOPers and the ConservaDems.

He spits in the face of liberals with shit like this, but won't stand up to the reich-wingers by doing anything too "liberal." Anyone want to make book on the Supreme Court nominee not being any further "left" than the so-called liberals now sitting up there?

But hey - maybe by 2012, he will have done something that will make me want to vote for him again. But I will have a record to base that vote on, and not mere campaign promises of "change."

what does that say about the future of the country?

But the poster asks what that means for our economy. I'm wondering if the poster gave any thought whatsoever as to whether or not their own preconceived notions - of the truth, what is right, what is possible, and what process needs to be undertaken to achieve the aforementioned - might be fundamentally flawed instead. In other words, the base assumption by the OP and the poster I responded is that Obama started at the correct place and moved into the wrong path, never once considering that perhaps it was Obama that was not on an optimal path originally and moved to the correct one after learning important pieces of the puzzle.

I'm not, mind you, saying that Obama is or is not currently moving in the right direction, only that we should never be so arrogant as to believe that our own held ideas are beyond reproach.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

some of the things you claim about him aren't true. Krugman for example praised Obama's budget as the most progressive one in decades.

I'm not happy either with everything, but let's be honest about your list:

"goals like ending the war"

Depending upon which one you mean, he's letting the one in Iraq end, just not on the schedule you want (or me really) and he is pursuing a different strategy in Afghanistan in an attempt to end that one in a fashion where we won't feel the need to return. I think it's a bit risky, and dubious, but it is a "change" from the approach his predecessor was taking (and apparently methods are going to change again since he replaced the commander).

stopping torture

It was stopped before he arrived, he wrote directives to prevent the restarting. Yes, I agree there is more to do, much more, and he seems resistant, but it is a departure from his predecessor.

bringing criminals to justice

I assume this is a reference to the torturers, because of course the DoJ is still in business. Yeah, I wish he was more progressive on this. You have to admit though, he didn't promise to do this and to some slight extent he made allusions to the fact that he wouldn't when he was campaigning.

reining in the predatory financial industry

Well, you could pretty well tell he wasn't going to do this when he pick Joe "Bankruptcy" Biden. He didn't really campaign on this and Congress isn't going to send him anything.

bringing health care to all Americans

This is a work in progress. It's not as encouraging as it could be, but you're predicting to a great extent here.

supporting civil rights for all Americans

I know what you mean, I'm not happy either, but he has restated his support for removing DADT. Again, it's a potential future event so we're kinda involved in crystal ball work here. I do wish he was more supportive of the marriage issue, but he campaign basically against it so ya can't claim surprise here.

restoring constitutional rights

Probably need some more specificity here. Not sure what you're alluding to. He's closing down Gitmo.

Sure, you've stepped up the rhetoric as time progresses, but this is nothing new for you at all. So I would have to ask you - why are you on a site that has a stated goal of supporting Democrats if you're not intending to support a Democratic president?

At least not like the sort of Democrats who made this country great: FDR, Truman, JFK

"progressive" in his politics than either FDR, Truman or JFK... and the only one of those three that is comparable is FDR. Both Truman and JFK were clearly less progressive than this president. In relation to the times, however, it could be argued that he is not as progressive.

Obama can't touch that yet.

The base is taken for granted.

But he HAS to be likes by the political insiders, the corporate donors and executives, and the influential moderates.

He is spending a huge amount of political capital to be liked by everyone but his base. A certain share of people in his base will love him no matter what he does, so why bother doing anything to actually earn that support?

in the service of something YOU deem worthy. How bushylike, how wingnut like of you.

Though that naturally leads to the next question. When will Obama start dismantling the illegitimate powers Bush gave the Presidency.

So far, Obama has not dismantled the spying on Americans. That apparently happened only accidentally because the NSA wasn't paying their phone bills. It could be resumed at any time, and for all we know, it might have been resumed.

So far, Obama has not dismantled the framework for detaining Americans indefinitely without access to lawyers or courts or Habeas Corpus. As of just earlier this week the administration is still debating how to handle terrorists in the US, still retaining Bush's illegitimate powers.

So far, Obama has not reinstated the observation of our obligations under international agreements that Bush decided we could totally ignore. For example, the torture that is apparently still going on in Guantanamo and CIA prisons under Obama according to Amnesty International and the Red Cross is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. When are we going to start observing the Geneva Conventions again?

There are a whole lot of illegitimate powers that Obama is still retaining I'd love to see him dismantle and publicly, permanently repudiate. :)

have the time or inclination to indulge the process for minimal (if that) gain.

What is especially galling is that those "illegitimate" powers you don't like have, thus far, only been used to hurt any liberal cause. He could have used the power of his office to order those torture photos released immediately. Instead, he defies the court and goes back on his previous "decision" to release them thus continuing the secrecy policies of the Bushistas.

If he is going to have and use those powers, at least do something constructive with them.

DADT is another example. He could snap his fingers, sign an executive order, and stop that in its tracks. Instead, we get some vague hint that maybe, at some future, undefined point in time, there might be a change in that policy. Thanks for nothing.

:thumbsdown:

DON"T LET YOUR CHILDREN JOIN THE MILITARY BECAUSE IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE ... TORTURE WILL GO COVERT.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8407833

term. Complain all you want, Obama is the President of all the people not just the Progressive people. Your comparison of Obama and Bush/Cheney is ignorant.

Go vote for Palin.