You think protesting a lame-duck president is going to change anything? It's a weak substitute

[bigtree]

. . . for the difficult task of challenging our elected officials in the Congress and Senate to act to defend our rights.

Obama was properly supported in the last election by Democratic voters; even those who were well aware that he didn't share many of our concerns about his defense of and perpetuation of many of Bushian 'terror' initiatives and laws. The alternative was much worse (as it always is), and its not just a small comfort to have dodged a Romney regime.

So, we weren't able to elect a progressive nominee; much less assure the election of such a candidate over the republican opposition. We elected a president who doesn't share our concerns over many of these national security issues. Is this news? Of course, not. Presidential politics isn't a zero-sum contest, if you are issue oriented. You take the bad with the good. We (necessarily) elected a moderate Democrat who agrees with many of the Bushian terror constructs.

That means that an effort to reign in ANY objectionable agreement that Obama has with the republicans shifts to Congress. Railing against the WH is fine and dandy, IF you are following that up with a challenge and demand to the legislators to bring about a change in those policies you disagree with. There is no substitute for that in our Democratic system.

It's certainly good sport to condemn the WH when they do something we disagree with. Indeed, it's the cornerstone of democratic participation to challenge the Executive. But, this is a lame-duck in the WH who has never been responsible for actually making law.

I realize the democratic process is cumbersome, contradictory, and often assumes the consistency of a rubber band. There is, however, NO effective, sustainable substitute for Congress actually crafting and advancing legislation into law. Without directly and thoroughly challenging Congress to act on our behalf - and expecting that poutrage and protest against the WH (at this point) is ultimately going to be a productive strategy to change their roll - is deflection, at best; sophistry at its worse.

Challenge Congress to confront Executive overreach and abuse. There really is no effective substitute.

[cali]

1. In other words: shut the fuck up with any criticism of the President.

[NYC_SKP]

2. When duck hunting, you lead the bird.

In other words, you aim toward where the bird will be in the future when your pellets arrive at that point, some considerable time after your brain sends a signal to your finger.

Criticizing Obama is like pissing in the wind, it's unproductive whining.

Instead, seek out those champions in the congress who will be there in 2016 and support them, and find those assholes who need to be pressured and pressure THEM.

Meanwhile, please feel free to write letters or start a White House petition on the matter, or sign on to the ones already there.

That can't hurt.

It's better than pissing in the wind.

[cali]

4. first of all, it's appropriate to criticize the executive branch

after all, there will be another President. It's criticism of how the executive branch operates and how it wields its power every bit as much as criticism of just this President. It has zippo to do with whining- though that's the weak "argument" that certain types like to engage in. Pretty lame.

Both Congress and the President can be and should be criticized over policy.

And I know fucking well that YOU didn't write this kind of "stop being mean to the President" shit when bushco was in office.

I do so love mindless partisanship.

[NYC_SKP]

9. I think it is, but not to the exclusion of proper pressure placed on politicians in Congress.

That's more my point.

[geek tragedy]

3. Complain all you want to about Obama, just know that it's not activism

but rather a recreational activity to do so.

He's never going to stand for re-election again.

[cali]

5. bwahahahaha. because YOU say so? gee why wouldn't I bow to you?

Let me count the fucking ways.

[geek tragedy]

10. Add up the net good every single complaint about Obama

you've ever made on DU has ever accomplished. Then compare it to how much you accomplish eating a bowl of Cheerios. They will come out roughly the same.

If you think you're engaging in activism instead of blowing off steam when doing so, that's just sad.

[randome]

12. How about because he CAN'T be re-elected?

Does anyone here have the faintest idea what would happen if Obama stopped using the tools available to him and there was a terrorist attack on the U.S.?

Any ideas?

I'll tell you -Republicanism would surge. It would be such an overwhelming tidal wave, this country would not recover for ANOTHER 30 years.

So put the pressure where it amounts to something -Congress and the Patriot Act.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[bigtree]

6. you're good at putting 'other words' in folks' mouths. It's too much to expect you to take my own

from the op:

"Railing against the WH is fine and dandy, IF you are following that up with a challenge and demand to the legislators to bring about a change in those policies you disagree with. There is no substitute for that in our Democratic system.

It's certainly good sport to condemn the WH when they do something we disagree with. Indeed, it's the cornerstone of democratic participation to challenge the Executive. But, this is a lame-duck in the WH who has never been responsible for actually making law."

[cali]

7. sorry, but in essense, that is what you are saying, friend.

[bigtree]

14. bullshit. Speak for yourself. I was clear enough that criticizing the president is proper

I just don't think it amounts to much more than venting if you're not actually working to get Congress to actually change the laws and policies. In fact, it's a deliberate tactic for some to deflect responsibility on the presidency. I wonder, in those instances, just how committed these folks are to actually bringing about a change in policy or law? After all, democracy 101, Congress crafts and passes the laws of our land. Expecting the presidency to reform itself is a fools game.

"in essence," this is what i actually said:

"it's the cornerstone of democratic participation to challenge the Executive."

[morningfog]

8. Exactly. It's gone from "He's only been President 1 year!" to "He only has

3 years left!"

[kenny blankenship]

13. Other things I long to hear them *finally* come out and say

"It's all for you, Damien!"

[MineralMan]

11. Uh, that was not what the OP said.

It's clear that you did not read it in its entirety, or chose not to understand it. Criticism is always appropriate, but it must be targeted in a way that influences change. Simply pointing and calling names doesn't cut it.

What I'm seeing on this set of current issues is a lot of misunderstanding of the issues and blame-placing without real consideration of the facts.

[Arctic Dave]

15. You're right, the best we can do is try to keep him from fucking things up more.

He has turned to be a huge waste of effort to get elected and the best we can do is makes sure he doesn't burn down the entire house before he is shown the door.

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. Dust and canvas...