Fareed Zakaria: Grow Up, Liberals!
Now, don't get me wrong: I actually kind of like Fareed Zakaria's take most of the time. I like that he offers up a global perspective, because I think there's little to be gained by closing our eyes to our place within the community of nations. He's looked at issues at a deeper level than most Sunday shows and brought in dissenting voices.
But boy, do I think he's off on this one. On a Charlie Rose show earlier in the week, author and psychologist Drew Westen (based on his NYTimes Op-Ed) gave a fairly common and impassioned argument within the progressive community of President Obama's performance so far:
Drew Westen: I guess I’ll start by saying just from that clip that you just played, which I hadn’t heard before but I think it’s a prime example is that the President blamed the problem on Congress. He didn’t say - and he blamed the problem on the lack of quote/unquote "Congress" to - to be able to - to negotiate in good faith and to compromise.
The problem is actually isn’t the problem in Congress, it’s the problem that one side of Congress is actually not willing to negotiate and the other side was willing to negotiate away most of its core principles.
So that kind of rhetoric may help the President in his re-election efforts, looking like he is the grown-up who’s above the fray. But in fact what he’s just done is actually to take one more shot at his own party, which is trying to be incredibly conciliatory along with him and they’re getting pretty tired of what a lot of them feel is one capitulation after another on core principles.
Charlie Rose: And you want him to do what?
Drew Westen: I want him to act like a Democrat. No, I take - I take that back. I’d like to him to act like a Republican, which is to have some convictions and stick with it. Stick with them....
"
And while it's inarguable that Obama has managed to get some big ticket Democratic items, like health care reform, it's always come at the cost of giving away the most progressive plank before negotiations even begin. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic argued on the same show that Westen is ahistoric and full of nonsense. Zakaria, coming distinctly on the same side as Chait, posits it is that success Obama has realized--compromised though it may be--that means that liberals are being entirely too unreasonable in their expectations.
I think that liberals need to grow up. As "The New Republic's" Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the president of the United States would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry and enact his agenda.
In this view, write Chait, every known impediment to the legislative process - special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macro economic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public policy - are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. This does happen if you're watching the movie "The American President," but not if you're actually watching what goes on in Washington.
Strawman, party of two? Westen's Op-Ed did not place that much significance on soaring rhetoric, only to note that the speeches that stirred a nation to get out to vote for Obama has not as yet seemed to match his actual actions. No, liberals aren't upset that he doesn't make more heartwarming speeches. Liberals are upset that Obama's tactics to negotiate in the conditions Zakaria describes is to start out giving the other side more than 50% of what they want and move further to the right from there. But that's a much harder position to defend, so Chait and Zakaria create a strawman to make liberals look unreasonable. Further, there is no indication--as Zakaria asserts--that Americans are concerned with jobs AND deficit spending. Americans care about their jobs and the economy vis a vis whether they'll have a job in the foreseeable future. The deficit is a concern of Beltway Villager academics, not average Americans.
To be fair, I have my own issues with some of the left's criticism of Obama too, because it appears to completely ignore the political environment we're in and how close the votes have been. I also think it's important to remember what the President can legally do and what is the provenance of Congress.
But it's the dismissive, condescending attitude of Zakaria towards liberal concerns that grates. I don't think that liberals hoping to see a little more strength and leadership from Obama is childish. I think taking the country to the brink of default is childish. I think intransigence against making the very top income earners pay their fair share is childish. I think feeding into racism by questioning whether the President was born in this country is childish.
But wanting the President to not ape and accept right wing memes that have driven the country into the economic wasteland we're in? There's nothing childish about it.
in 5...4...3...2...
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
We are not Obama haters dipshit. He just isn't that into us and now that we have realized that it is really kind of a downer. Hell we'd be better off with a damn Republican in the WH, at least then the Dems would oppose these retrograde policies. Obama is pushing the same fucking policies and the goddamn Dems are fucking backing him. WTF?
Methinks we already have a Republican in the White House.
No, it is more destructive because he masquerades as a Democrat and talks the talk but when it comes to walking the walk he is a fucking paraplegic.
Remember, Only Nixon could go to China.
In 5 . . . 4 . . .
Oh, wait.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I think Fareed got some it right, but to suggest that progressives don't understand the forces that Obama is up against is incorrect. Some progressives forget this too often, but i think most progressives are just hoping the republicans don't destroy the country before we can vote them out of office for good.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
.
..cue the defend-the-conservative-president-at-all-cost liberal haters in 5...4...3...2...
I don't know if Fareed recognizes it or not, but he just pointed out every failure Obama has made, he marks them as successes.... this is the problem... Grow up Fareed...Obama needs to get his back bone a work out.
I think Fareed Zakaria and Charlie Rose are both part of the group called The Council on Foreign Relations.
The CFR controls the American Media.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
Add Zakaria to the burgeoning group of self-anointed political oracles who confuse analysis with public masturbation.
Can bite me.
needs to pull his head out of the corporate asshole he's got it stuck in.
He also needs to just shut the fuck up about people he's calling liberals and grow up himself.
me-oww!
Democratic Office Holders need to Grow Up!
When GW Bush came into office the whole team arrived, on one page, raring to go.The rapidity with which right-wing legislation and executive orders were enacted was breathtaking.WIth a simple majority in the Senate, they pushed through one piece of legislation after another. And because they remained strong, they kept their base into the 2002 midterms and the 2004 elections, flagging only in the 2006 midterms.
By contrast, despite majorities in both Houses of Congress and a clear mandate for change, the Democratic Office holders (certainly not Just Obama - Harry Reid's insistence on a 60 vote super majority played perhaps a bigger role) frittered away not just the Progressive Agenda most of us believed they were going to enact, but they also frittered away the allegiance of the very base that got them elected, leading to a trouncing in the 2010 midterms and the very real threat of losing not just the Houses of Congress but also the Presidency in 2012.
Westen's got it absolutely right - if only the Democrats adopted the Republican's "take no prisoners" approach they might not only get something done (not just pass a bill entitled "Health Care Reform" but instead enact REAL Health Care reform, for instance) but they'd also keep the allegiance of their base and get re-elected.
DUH!!!
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
If Obama's decisions are "childish" then what is David Vitter in a diaper playing with his poop? I think Fareed is setting the bar waaaayyyyyy toooooo high. Compared to Vitter, Obama is a supreme being.
"certain settled beliefs of public policy"
Meaning, the 'Pubs and the teabaggers have won the argument with the moronic American public that government is the problem, period.
So by keeping quiet and not speaking up as a Democrat, Obama is accepting defeat, like a good little beltway sheep, right Fareed?
I call bullshit.
No, YOU grow up! :P
There is a reason that progressives from so many different parts of the world have issues with this presidency; immaturity is not one of them. When he says one thing and does another, he should be called out on it. And it must be stressed, since this point seems to be lost on his apologists, we are not talking that he AGREES to do something different than what he said, but that he actually PURSUES something different that what he actually says. Get it? Got it? Good.
Thank you.
It's all too facile to say we just hate the idea of compromise. It's fucking stupid to say we don't understand the political climate, and blame Obama for everything despite the influence of the Teabaggers on an Republican Party that is already insane without them. These aren't real arguments. They're caricatures of progressives' arguments.
Frankly, to carciature the frustration progressives feel with this president as but fantasy that if only he would make a speech, he would usher in a complete and unfettered liberal agenda, is infantile.
And I resent it when an infant tells me to grow up.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
ignorance (Disclosure: proud member thereof) of the Obama team.
One side gets most of what they want, most of the time, and they play the victim and accuse the other side of evil.
One side gets little of what they want, most of the time, because their elected representatives sacrifice their core principles and capitulate at every turn.
Fareed Zakaria things the latter side needs to grow up?
The people who depend for their jobs or prestige on the Obama administration staying in office are the ones desperate to get the rest of us to shut up and get behind Obama so he can be re-elected. I think that if you list the people who are talking this way, you will pretty well trace them all back to some kind of financial or social dependence on the administration staying in power.
The rest of us are like the embarrassing kids who are talking too much and making Mommy and Daddy look bad in front of their friends. Maybe he won't get that big promotion. Didn't he just tell us to stop whining and eat our peas? That says a whole lot about the situation right there.
Obama and his bots have been trashing liberals regularly since his inauguration in an attempt to divert attention from his own vacuity. Their latest meme is that Obama is the "adult" in the room, an unfortunate image from someone who is looking more and more like The Beaver. An adult understands the difference between standing for principle and mouthing empty platitudes. An adult understands the difference between being a leader and being a fall guy. And an adult understands the difference between compromise and capitulation. Adopting the shopworn policies of Reaganomics, cutting spending in the middle of a recession, and putting Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block are not the acts of a grown-up, they are the acts of a political weenie who is in way over his head. The public gets this, which is probably why Obama's approval numbers are in free fall. Maybe its the progressives who are the adults here.
...the current era of politics and that of the 1850s, we can talk. Until then, it's a matter of allowing the
ConfederatesTea Party to fire the first shots on Fort Sumter.Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
There is no principle to which he professes that he is not instantly ready to abandon, in the ceaseless chasing of shabby, often self-serving expedients that has characterized his entire life political. Thus, he is a person of mere sentiments, not a man of principles. If one's integrity is measured solely by the extent to which one makes his life congruent with the principles he professes, that leaves he and others like him as people of little to zero integrity.
If he is adhering to principles, it is the set of operating objectives that he subscribes to as a CFR'er/Trilateralist/GOPer operative. Those are in complete contradiction to the principles he publicly professes to value, which in its very best means that he has been extremely and cynically dishonest in the crafting of his empty public personna. It makes him a liar and a predator.
A Nation Without a Leader
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
Candidate Obama: Change you can believe in! Yes, we can! I will change Washington. I will fight for a public option. I will firmly stand against a mandate to purchase insurance from private companies. I will end the Bush Tax cuts. I will close Guantanamo.
Progressives: Fantastic. You have my vote.
President Obama: Change is hard. We can't. Business as usual. The public option is off the table. Mandating insurance purchases is a good idea. Bush tax cuts are extended. Guantanamo will remain open. Etc.
Progressives: But you said--
World: Grow up.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
thank you for stating the obvious.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
rises above his office. Obama has done the opposite, he has let the office define his presidency.
JFK:
-The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use — of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public.
-About one-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.
-The essential humanity of men can be protected and preserved only where government must answer — not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion, or a particular race, but to all its people.
JFK quoted Camus, Aeschylus, GB Shaw. In one generation, the US Presidency went from the above as quote material to a president who never heard of them.
Imagine the outrage if Obama quotes Camus, Aeschylus, GB Shaw. Accusations from being "uppity" to "talking down" to Americans. He's better off quoting Snookie.
Of any color should never be concerned with the horrible notion of being uppity, only rabid dog racists would think in their pea sized brains.
walked the walk of whatever is the talk to which they refer in the quotes. If Obama tried to make such quotes, they would be empty and laughable, because he hasn't lived the principles or first made his life conform to them. It would be just so much empty and probably distracting rhetoric.
you nailed it, Karen.
Now, what would be hilarious is if Fareed Zakaria could understand you, which I doubt, and then admit he made a mistake. Yet, somehow I ain't holding my breath.
+1
I want him to tell the Republicans in Congress, "This is as far as I go - the Bush tax cuts expire on those over $250,000, you keep you paws off Medicare benefits and eligibility, and we are implementing a jobs program that will keep teachers and other government workers on the job, AND put millions more to work rebuilding the infrastructure - and we are going to borrow the money to do it, because rates are unbelieveably low. Social Security if off the table, because it has NOTHING to do with the deficit. If you don't like it, too bad, this is what every poll tells us people want. So you decide, you can side with the people of this country, or you can align yourself with multinational corporations that want to suck all the benefits of being in the US but refuse to contribute."
Nah, that's too sweeping. I want him to say, "Fuck you, you greedy neanderthals (no disrepect to neanderthals) this is what I'm proposing. You go ahead and reject it if you want - but I do intend to fight for it in the public square. And as you have said so often, I'm versed in the Chicago Way.
I want him to say, "Fuck you, you greedy neanderthals (no disrepect to neanderthals) this is what I'm proposing. You go ahead and reject it if you want - but I do intend to fight for it in the public square. And as you have said so often, I'm versed in the Chicago Way.
Now that would be somebody I cuold vote for.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
He'd never bite the hand that feeds him.
I keep coming across piece after piece that misrepresents both Obama's record and his critics, whether they're in the Democratic establishment or whether they're in the minority left wing of this country's political spectrum.
When you write that "while it's inarguable that Obama has managed to get some big ticket Democratic items, like health care reform, it's always come at the cost of giving away the most progressive plank before negotiations even begin," you're dead on. That's the real problem. And also, as you mention, "that Obama's tactic . . . is to start out giving the other side more than 50% of what they want and move further to the right from there."
It's taken me three years to finally give up on him, and I was very happy when I voted for him. Granted, I was barely 19 years old and not as politically informed as I could have been, but from what I'd read in the (corporate) media, he seemed to be not only the lesser of two evils but actually a good choice. It still sometimes pains me to say it, but by this point he's really just the lesser of two evils. I think.
There is one point I think you're wrong on, though:
"To be fair, I have my own issues with some of the left's criticism of Obama too, because it appears to completely ignore the political environment we're in and how close the votes have been. I also think it's important to remember what the President can legally do and what is the provenance of Congress."
Putting aside that most Americans tend to hold the chief exec ultimately responsible for everything (the "provenance of Congress" part), you're assuming that in an alternate debate from the one we've had, all else would be equal. I think that misrepresents the alternatives. I think very little would stay equal.
Take the health care debate just for starters. The vote was very close because a lot of conservative Democrats were wary of voting for something so big, new, scary, and strange. Human beings are by nature generally conservative anyway. They tend to go with what they know. So when this thousand-page bill was put before the American public (which is very individualistic and likes to pretend that everyone is unique and self-sufficient), which mandated that they buy health care and put new restrictions on "business," the right-wing and corporate news outlets were able to spin this as "government takeover" and "coercion" and a reduction of "choice."
Now, granted, the health insurance industry only seemed opposed to certain provisions of the bill. But since the government wasn't actually putting them out of business or cutting too far into their bottom line, I don't think you can chalk all of this up to corporate pushback (which would come, in some form or another, no matter what type of health care reform the Democrats had fought for), Republicans notwithstanding. This seems to have been a failure of messaging. A strategic blunder.
A lot of Americans didn't really know what "health reform" consisted of. What was the nature of this "reform"? What was "the public option"? What was "single-payer"? On this issue, the Democrats actually had a winning hand (which is not true of all issues - the death penalty, for instance, is one that the public seems to genuinely support the Republicans on). They could have simply mouthed the words, in unison and ad nauseum: "Medicare for all." The public knows what Medicare is. The public likes Medicare. All the Democrats would have had to do is promise they weren't going to outlaw insurance companies, so you could choose private insurance or Medicare, and the public support probably would have been much stronger than it was.
This would have put the Republicans on the defensive and forced them to discuss figures and statistics, which are boring, and detracted from their ability to mouth glib but effective reductionist talking points. Rather than having the Democrats pulling out obscure statistics which anyone could contest on whatever grounds they wanted (such as "I just don't trust you"), the Republicans would have to come up with a reason why offering up a workable program to the public at large constituted "coercion" or "government takeover" or "death panels" or anything else.
The corporate democrats might have seen pushback from their rich sponsors, but it voting against "Medicare for all" would probably have been certain political suicide whereas going against the wishes of one sponsor or another might be only potential political suicide. I think that Obama probably made this same calculation - is the public support going to be enough to outweigh the corporate pushback? or is the corporate support going to be enough to prop up the party in the face of faltering public support? - or he did if he saw how the Republicans would spin it, which I don't really know whether or not he's actually that insightful. He keeps pretending the GOP will play nice with the other kids, after all.
Anyway, my point is that simply going "more to the left" politically doesn't mean that the votes would necessarily have been as close as they were. The vote might have actually gone substantially more in Obama's favor if he'd simply argued for making Medicare available to anyone who wanted it. It's a question of how much popular support would have been sustained. If it had been enough to push through Medicare for All, great. That would mean the Democrats win 100% of what they wanted, Obama has a huge victory under his belt, and total US spending on health care begins to be controlled at the same time as the power of predatory insurance companies recedes, both from public and political life.
If, on the other hand, Obama had failed, then he could have begun the bargaining process for something less. God knows what the Republicans would have done, but the corporate interests would probably have been willing to settle for some token reforms with their Democratic representatives, having just survived a brush with imminent and certain death.
I just think a lot of these "close votes" have to be taken on their individual merits. Many of them were close because the negotiations have been mangled from the start. Going more to the left or more to the right is only going to make things inherently worse if you start straying from what your supporters want.
It's all debatable, and certainly academic at this point, but that's my general belief, anyway.
Are the toxic fumes from your right wing colleagues at CNN causing you to hallucinate? What did you expect when you hang around these corporate lapdogs? Their lunacy must be rubbing off on you. I respected much of your past work. But not now.
And another thing pal, we are not fooled by trite marketing soundbytes that promise much but deliver little. And we certainly aren't fooled by your industry's propaganda and resent your dismissive and condescending commentary about what we believe, which no tonguelashing from you will ever change.
We're here to change the world for the better. Maybe you ought to get off your dead ass and do the same instead of being beholden to your corporate masters that buy your silence and complicity with a big salary and a microphone. A lot of us were protesting in the streets for social justice and equity when you were an infant. If you value your civil liberties, then best you thank people like us who were willing to take the risk of challenging authority and the status quo and continue to do so today.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
I hope he reads your comment. Great comment as usual bmw 528!
In my opinion the "change" Obama thought he could bring to Washington in 2008 has become much more difficult then he thought. He placed himself in the centrist part of the spectrum which now actually seems to be right of center. Why? I really believe being in two ongoing wars and inheriting the Great Recession( which was recently said to be worse then previously thought) has swayed independents and moderates into a fiscal conservative mindset/fear. The "change" that I wanted was reasonable compromise. I believe Obama wanted the same but there's too much riding on this second term for Republican elites. Like Bush and the past Republican majority congress Republicans have shown little interest in compromise. Lets be real, this Republican strategy to have Obama "fail" at all costs is backed by global financial people, and believed by people who will deny Bush and his following had absolutely little to nothing to do with the current problems/challenges.
here
Nouriel Roubini (who is NOT a Marxist) interviewed at the WSJ - home of the über capitalists…
Some heavy hitting.
here
Grow up Liberals?!
They're dead!
a good one here
Obama is throwing out the last of the New Deal and the Great Society which were the core of the Democratic Party of yesteryear.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
the continual false equivalency.
he's the same kind of tool as mr. 'sources'.
Some stuff you can't make up!
is this the new liberal defense? anytime liberals are criticized at all its a "false equivalency"??
How about liberals learn from their mistakes. Rally behind your president. Its not his fault republicans are obstructionists.
That's right, sit down, relax and enjoy yourself while the sociopaths burn the country to the ground as Obama hands them the gasoline cans. Be a good little german, don't ask questions, and follow Dear Leader, even when he's marching off a cliff.
If people did that, you couldn't have a progressive dick-measuring contest!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
"Its not his fault republicans are obstructionists". Sorry, that dog don't hunt anymore.
We rallied behind Obama in 2008. Not our fault if he turned out to be an ass.
proof that the corporate media can corrupt anyone.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Fareed, have you ever suggested the conservatives should grow up? Ever?
Maybe you have, but your next appearance on GPS might be a good time to repeat that sentiment.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Never much cared for his perspective.
Nicole Belle (the Other Belle)
;-)
did write:
"But wanting the President to not ape and accept right wing memes that have driven the country into the economic wasteland we're in? There's nothing childish about it."
Ding! Two points. And it isn't just an economic wasteland - it's an international political wilderness as well. The USA is still in Iraq and Afghanistan, still doesn't have habeus corpus, and is filled with millions of delusional asshats who think Michele Bachmann is A-OK, which is why, even with Obama many people around the world trust the USA about as much as a crack addled 12 year old with a grenade launcher.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Fareed offers the left how to not shoot itself in the foot and you guys blast him over it?
Not everyone. He does make some valid points. That progressives, as a whole, are childish is not one of them.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Well, if just sitting and being quiet and watching as the country is dismantled and destroyed right in front of you is the way to avoid shooting yourself in the foot, then what's the point of even having a left?
And, I'm imaging so is yours.
long ago on Easter Island....
We stood for keeping some trees...
but we were told to "Grow up".
We watched the wealthy use the last of those trees...to build canoes and paddle away...
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
:^)
'Talk to the hand'
"...if only the president of the United States would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry and enact his agenda. ..."
But what is the agenda? In the case of the debt ceiling, Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54tca3d5OnU) and Harry Reid both declined to tie the debt ceiling issue with the renewal of the Bush tax cuts. A blind man could see what was coming. I find it incredulous that Harry Reid and Pres. Obama also didn't see what would ensue if the Democrats didn't tie the tax cut renewals with the debt ceiling.
I think Obama enacted his agenda with the debt ceiling deal. I'm not buying this "capitulation" nonsense, or the Republicans made me do it.
I noticed in Obama's speech Aug 8th, that he said, "Last week, we reached an agreement that will make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending. But there’s not much further we can cut in either of those categories." No more cuts to defense spending? We spend more than the rest of the world combined. And the cuts they propose is a joke. Barney Frank and Ron Paul had a proposal that would cut $100B a year. This would be just in overseas base closing, and wouldn't begin to address the purchase of unneeded military hardware.
I noticed that Ron Paul finished 2nd. So, the Republicans have a smaller war candidate, but we don't.
I'm with Westen on this one: I don't know where Obama stands on any particular issue.
I know he supports torturing other human beings though - that's a lock.
I think Zakaria got the same memo as Cenk Uygur, except he had the gonads to tell MSNBC to shove it where the sun don't shine.
Nicole, you are one of my more favorite bloggers on my most favoritest site, but, I have to disagree with you. You said HCR was a "Democratic item". But thats not true at all. In fact it is a purely REpug item. It is nothing but one more big ticket item that helps the corporations that wrote it.
Zakari says were upset because Obama isn't doing whats best for his party. For at least myself, thats not true. I am upset with the fact OBama has done nothing to help this country. Clearly we still have not had one true jobs program (the stimulus was 40% unneeded tax cuts and a lot of the rest of the money was used to fill budget holes for states) Almost every single Bush ear policy has been continued or magnified. I am not upset because we don't have single payer health care, I am upset because we had a dem controlled congress and president and we got a health insurance give away that really didn't do anything to bring the health care standards up to the level they should be in the richest country in the world. I am not upset because we didn't get tax increases, I am upset because not only have the Bush tax cuts been extended once, but we all know in an election year they will be extended once again (again full control of both houses at the time).I am not even upset that we arn't out Iraq of Afgan, I am upset we are now in PAkinstan with drones and other countries as well.
You see Mr. Zakaira, its not about my party ( in fact after they all voted for this fraud i could careless for my party) Its aboutmy country. Obama has had the biggest bullhorn in the country, He can go on prime time anytime he wants. He sets where the debate begins. And constantly he has started the debate with what his friends on Wall Street have told him to do. Heck, has anyone on Wall Street gone to JAIL yet ??? How bout investigations into why we went to War in Iraq based on a lie ?? None of these things have been done. How bout standing up for the rights of all people like the rights of gays to get married if they so choose (not sure why anyone would want to get married and stop having sex but hey) This Obama hasn't capitulated, you have to start on the the other side to do that. This president is a fraud plain and simple. If you can not see that by now then you are just as much a sheep as a tea party person who thinks their leaders care about them and not about corporate interests.
Its funny the corporations have the leaders of both parties running around the country convincing the people who support them that they are working for the people. The truth is that Obama and MOST of the dems in congress and the Tea PArty and MOST of the Repugs are all truly supporting corporate interests and nothing more. Wall Street and money are king and the people are nothing more than serfs.
We need to stop with this "were Dems, so we support Obama" F that. We need a new PArty. And we should just call it the peoples party. Americans only hope is that some wonderful rich person who also understands the lobbyists (corporations) are running this country and decide to open a lobbying firm dedicated to being the voice of the people. And then we as the people have to be willing to give that lobbying group the money they need to take back the power in washington.
So Mr. Zakaria if your going to tell me that i am upset because Obama is not doing what my party wants him to do, you should check out how things are going in this country. We have one of the greatest jobs crisis in the history of this country and we just passed a Debt deal that will kill off almost a million more jobs. And you think i am mmad because we don't have single payer health care ??? I am angry because Obama is a fraud that cares more about what the lobbyists are going to do to help get reelcted or which corporation is going to let him sit on their board when he is done as president than he is in fixing this country so my kids don't end up living in some kinda theofacist slave labor country. Perhaps if you so called "news" people started doing your job and present facts and truth instead of ratings grabbing arguments where you let someone sit an djust flat out lie because you "have give both sides of the argument"
Seriously for anyone in the media to criticize anyone on anything is out of touch at best. Fix your own glass house buddy. Then again, you do work for a giant corporation don't you. I should be asking you do your loyalties belong to the people or your greedy corporate bosses ???
With all due respect, Mr. Zakaria, I don't believe the president could accomplish much with one "stirring speech" or even several other them.
However, if Mr. Obama were in fact a progressive -- rather than a thinly concealed conservative -- he could dig in his heels and show some spine against the intractable, regressive conservatives who have been framing and controlling things for far too long. Granted, he would risk his reelection in this, but as it stands, I'm ready to vote for an openly insane and/or criminal Republican candidate. This might be effective suicide, but at least it would be fast, honest suicide.
Well said sir.
I tend to see some merit in what this fella is saying...but the phrase, "grow up..."? Well, maybe not quite the way to express it.
This is a lot more complicated than we would like. Suppose Obama did stand rigid and refuse to bend with these corporatists...? What then? We'd get NO where. This country can't afford that at this time. In order to get re-elected, he has to have some accomplishments under his belt, and he has to have prevented the whole economy from falling off a cliff...which the corporatists are too eager to help happen. So he "co-operates with the devil" bit.
Remember.....he is NOT FDR. There was only one FDR, and he wasn't perfect either. But we got Mr. Smooth Talker...and he can get things done. Our expectations were a bit high. In fact, I think we expected to kick the corporatists' asses. Not going to happen.
Get him re-elected..and then I expect President Obama to take on some issues that will really stir up the hornets' nest. Immigration....tax overhaul....finance reform....etc, etc. But he's going to need a few more supporters in Congress than he has now, and better and more true supporters. So that's OUR JOB. Get him the support he needs, get him re-elected, and do the rain-dance and pray to whoever you want that he shows up and gets this country turned away from the cliff.
We got DADT repealed....a "start" on Health Care....and a "start" on finance reform. You have to get your foot in the door to get started...and with these SOB's (teabaggers and corporatist shills), we're lucky to have gotten as far as we have with this President....or any other president. Do you really think Clinton would have been any better? Don't bet on it.
which is totally absurd, delusional and typical for an American.
Even Sanders doubts he'll be challenged. Which is why I took him off my avatar. I hope you are right and we get Obama out of the closet to become a true Progressive/Liberal.
Sanders Says He Doesn't Know Who Would Step Up to Primary Obama
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...
Bla bla bla bla----------------------------
Ed-words
It bothers me that when this President has not lived up to his promises as a candidate that either
People are considered haters by those who rightfully criticize his actions or as Mr. Zakaria says, we're told to "Grow up".
I think the bar has been set so lowly that the suggestion that anyone ACCEPT what a politician says to get elected as a bedrock belief system is foolishness. I consider it a verbal contract.
That is not to say that things cannot be compromised, but it gets extremely annoying that none of those contracts with America (sorry to borrow a phrase) make it.
I'm with Dan Carlin on this.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dancarlin/comm...
He said he wasn't elected by people who wanted him to give up on everything he believes. He was elected by those who believed what he said.
Maybe its far more important to say "No" more and step outside the beltway and be a one-term president, than it is to continue "business as usual" and keep chipping away at the constitution and throw America off the brink.
As Carlin said, I'd like to see a primary challenger, and I challenge Mr. Zakaria to debate Dan Carlin on this issue. Hell, I'd like to see him on this board too.
J
"People are considered haters by those who rightfully criticize his actions." And by the very people who made sure we had no other choice.
is (a) intelligent (b) informative or (c) credible.
F. Zakaria worked for Newsweek and then gets a TV gig at CNN? What in that sentence implies that F. Zakaria knows what he's talking about or has a clue? He's a total establishment bitch who has never said anything, imo, credible. It's that simple, he has no credibility on the issues.
is CFR and Trilateral Commision. That's all you need to know.
From the Censorship Project top 25 censored storied of 2009:
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/ar...
out of a corner that he has acted himself into.
I also think that calling the travesty that was passed health"care" "reform" is laughable. It wasn't reform and there is no provision that is included that also doesn't have a loophole. It's only effective intent was to give the insurance racketeers and big pharma a never ending payday. JMO.
Well, your opinion is factually and proveably wrong. Hence their desire to get rid of this supposed "giveaway".
read the 3,000+page bill. Pretty much every provision has a loophole or escape clause for the ensurers that allows them to escape their obligations, one of the most notable is their ability to escape their responsibilities just claiming fraud. I don't know what you would call a law that makes it madatory to shop at a company store with the right not to give anything in return; I'll call it a give away/coperate welfare program. If that makes it opinion, in your opinion, that's fine with me.
Zakaria was a full on Bush supporter back before it was cool not to be and loved that we invaded Iraq. So, he lost credibility with me years ago. What short memories we have.
You wish to cuff us for not being mature enough to recognize what is good for us, like taking cuts in our social safety nets, but then you lazily spew out this statement:
"He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who in long careers in public service got some things wrong, but also got many things right"
Now Fareed, who is not being the adult here, you throw out a generalized statement like that, removed from all fact or reason, and we are suppose to be shamed into being pleased with getting our financial head handed to us on a rusty pike?
Who is being disingenuous here?
Yet when we rail against what is being stolen from us by representatives of the wealthiest people in the history of the world, we are the ones who lack: "common sense".
Yeah, uh huh.
'Talk to the hand'
No, Mr. Zakaria,
Liberals don't need to grow up - we need to wake up.
We need to wake up to the fact that Obama is a moderate Republican. He has entered EVERY negotiation by surrendering ground before things even get started. He's continued and even extended the Bush policies. He has appointed people like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who are part of the problem, and backed away from people like Elizabeth Warren who would work to solve our problems. He's triangulated when he should have stood firm. 80% of Americans want to increase taxes on the rich and on corporations. Think that will ever happen under this administration? Hah!
No - President Obama has turned his back on the people that put him in office, and he has lost my vote. I will NEVER again vote for a person merely because he/she has a 'D' next to his/her name. I will vote only for the person who most closely reflects my views and values. If the election were held today, I would cast a write-in ballot for Bernie Sanders for President.
There a lot of good local Democratic Parties, but the national Dems for the most part can flip over their pogo sticks, hop on, and GTFO.
Just read the preceding comments. Unyielding partisans unwilling to see beyond their own unchangeable beliefs. They're like a left wing tea party - refusing to endorse any idea outside of their angry sphere. Like the tea party - they think they understand EVERYTHING because they're PROGRESSIVES! YES, I'm a progressive. Yes, I'm disappointed in Obama in many ways - but I don't claim to know everything that he is privy to. All these progressive "know-everythings" have proven exactly what Zakaria said.
"Grow up."
"No, you grow up."
"No YOU grow up!"
etc.etc.etc.
Another Obot telling us that Big O is playing eleventy-dimensional chess, and that he's just too smart for liberals to understand. The problem with that argument is that liberals/progressives have been right about the issues -- and the politics -- every single time, while Big O has gotten bitch-slapped every single time. Yes, we really DO know more than Obama. Get over it!
You just proved Mark Y's point.
fradiavolo:
"Obot"
"Big O has gotten bitch-slapped every single time."
"Yes, we really DO know more than Obama."
"liberals/progressives have been right about the issues -- and the politics -- every single time"
Grow up!
I think JohnDenver is Mark Yungbluth's sock-puppet. Just my opinion.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Sorry folks I liked him when he started but Obama is not a leader he is a mediator.
How about Fareed, Obama, and the rest of the corporate-owned Dumbocrats go suck a big fat **** in 2012? Oh wait, you already are. Yo mamma too. Burrrrrrned! Nice work CNN at trying to keep up with the Jones' over at FauxNews. 2 Networks, 1 Cup....now eat it.
No one is waiting for a magic speech that will solve all our ills but that doesn't mean a good speech can't help. Republicans have Fox News while Democrats have to beg for air time from the rest of the networks with the exception of when President Obama gives a speech; that's the reason President Obama's use of the bully pulpit is so important - it is the only time Democrats can present a single, unified message across the networks that doesn't get ignored or emasculated in the telling by the press. That ain't nothing.
This blog was particularly nasty towards Clinton and her supporters.
Sometime liberals do need to grow up.
This *blog* (of which I was Managing Editor at the time) took great pains to NOT be rude or nasty to Hillary Clinton, to which we took a lot of hits from the blogosphere for not taking a stand in the primary.
The commenters could admittedly be very nasty towards HRC (and also towards BHO, to be fair), but you should not hold the blog accountable for commenters. I vehemently disagree with the progressive notion of primarying Obama is a smart or constructive endeavor, but those comments are all over this site.
During the '08 primaries the commentariat here was split into three groups: Those who claimed C&L was unfair to and bashing Clinton, those who claimed that C&L was unfair to and bashing Obama, and the rest of us, who were shaking our heads and chuckling over the paranoid claims of the first two groups.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Why does anyone ever listen to Fareed?
He was an advocate for both wars in their lead up, he has continued to push for us to "stay the course" and he is a continuing defender of Wall Street's greed. This is not new, he has always been this way. Please, if you hold even moderately liberal views on any important issues stop listening to Fareed. He is nothing but profiteer propaganda wrapped in rational sounding inflections and better-than-thou attitude.
Secret Iraq Meeting Included Journalists (Zakaria)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/business/me...
It is time to get real about Afghanistan. Withdrawal is not a serious option.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
The potential benefits of a war in Iraq
http://www.war-in-iraq.org/political/war-bene...
Other than the Gang of Six in the Senate, people are still pushing their ideologies rather than fixing the problem. The great danger is that once again, the American economy will outperform expectations and relieve politicians from having to make hard choices about entitlements and taxes.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8...
Obama's CEO problem -- and ours
Obama has no business executives in his Cabinet, that he rarely consults with CEOs (except for photo ops), that he has almost no private-sector experience.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Thanx Stupid Git!
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Can some one please tell me how taking more from the poor, and raising taxes to Clinton levels is balanced. It's only a 3% hike on the top tax bracket, that works out to be $30 more on a $1000 dollars over and above a million. They won't even notice it's gone.
Yeah it should be 50% on everything over $500K.
Fareed can suck on my chocolate salty balls, and they are delicious!
I would have been far less polite. I'm am sick of the 'whole loafers' on both ends of the spectrum who will turn their backs on a friend if they don't agree 100%. Grow the hell UP! There are other points of view than yours in the country, and they vote as well, perhaps more reliably than do you.
Fareed is as out of touch with most Americans as the rest of the Beltwayers. I wonder what he makes to flap his lips without thinking.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Comments are closed on this entry