Ok, someone tell me the accepted time frame in which we can criticize our President's policies

[shadowknows69]

Because if I read "It's only been four months" again I think I'm going to shoot my monitor (Elvis style. Represent).

There should be no time limit on when we hold our representatives to Democratic values, but by all means let's create one so we can have done with the circular firing squad here.
-S

[cali]

1. Very few folks have said that Obama shouldn't be criticized.

I think he should be criticized. I don't think calling him a war criminal is legitimate criticism, or saying he's no different/better than bush, etc.

[obliviously]

2. 8pm central time tonight

I am starting to be angry and I was one of the people saying give him a chance.

[stray cat]

3. Criticize away - but don't condemn others for criticizing you - people disagree

just like you disagree and can criticize the president expect your share of criticism to your critique.

[Gman]

4. Frankly, there's not a damn thing you or anyone else has to complain about

[shadowknows69]

16. Of course there isn't dear

[mitchtv]

29. Bwahahahahaha

you said it

[tavalon]

34. Mmmmm

:popcorn: Do you have the butter, flamebaiter?

[LostinVA]

44. Torture, Gitmo, Gay Rights, Polar Bears...

[dorkulon]

56. I have a hangnail.

Dammit, it hurts!

[Balbus]

5. It's only been a third of a year...

:hide:

[CTyankee]

6. Criticizing, like drinking, should be moderate. Obama is not Bush.

You gave him your vote. You can give him a bit of slack. You don't have to pander or be over the top,just measured in your thinking and your criticism. We all have our differences with Obama. But they are small in comparison with what our enemies want. Let's moderate our responses, too, while reserving to ourselves our right to disagree...

[liberalmuse]

7. Go right ahead.

There are a few camps on DU. You need not feel inhibited here. I did post a few critical posts a couple weeks ago and I'm still here to talk about it. I am not of the mind to criticize our President right now, but that doesn't mean I'm not paying attention, or that some of the news coming out doesn't bother me. It means I need more info before I "go there". Right now, I'm avoiding the threads where some appear to be to be out for blood, but they are here if you need them. I'm not saying that is wrong, just that you can pick and choose which posts you want to respond to, and which to avoid. There is more diversity here at DU than some would believe.

[smalll]

8. "... create on(e) so we can have done with the circular firing squad here"???

What do you mean exactly? We should set a time limit, say six months, and then we can just be a straight-line firing squad -- all aiming at Obama?

If some people want to snipe at Obama, there's no reason others shouldn't snipe back in defense of our Democratic President.

[gcomeau]

9. Sheesh.

People generally respond with "it's only been four months" to people complaining that some huge changes that it is irrational to expect to have been accomplished in that time frame haven't already magically occured somehow. Complaints of the form of:

"Why hasn't Obama done this yet!?!?!?"

"Why is this Bush policy not retracted already!?!?!??!

etc...

I rarely see anyone use "it's only been four months" as a response to a disagreement over policy content as you seem to be rather dishonestly implying constantly occurs. Considering the things on Obama's plate when he took over "it's only been four months" is a pretty solid answer to random idiots outraged that he didn't specifically addressed their pet issue as soon as he finished taking his oath of office.

[bigtree]

12. It's a bullshit answer to most criticisms

If there is indeed something which can be pointed to as a success in this administration there are bound to be actions and policies which can be defined as wrongheaded or folly. It's fine if folks want to project some outcome in the future of policy decisions or actions of the administration, but only an idiot would fall for an open-ended trial period in which to judge that success. The '4 months' argument is usually made to suspend judgment, so it's more than fair to ask WHEN it will be appropriate (to the defenders of the president's policy) to render a verdict on that success or failure of the president's initiatives?

Besides, it's perfectly obvious on many issues what the outcome of policy decisions will be, especially those in which the president has refused to divert from the policies which we spent time and resources to oppose for the past nine years. Do we really need to WAIT to see what the effect of that continuation of Bush's nonsense will be before denouncing it?

[tavalon]

36. Exactly!

Continuation of Bush policies will get him roundly criticized and it doesn't matter how long he's been in office.

[gcomeau]

49. Ahem...

If there is indeed something which can be pointed to as a success in this administration there are bound to be actions and policies which can be defined as wrongheaded or folly.

Were you under the impression I had denied this? In any way? At all?

The '4 months' argument is usually made to suspend judgment, so it's more than fair to ask WHEN it will be appropriate (to the defenders of the president's policy) to render a verdict on that success or failure of the president's initiatives?

Entirely fair. However that is not what the OP was bitching about... he was claiming people were saying we couldn't criticize Obama's policies, and by that I can only assume policies he has actually enacted rather than some hypothetical imagined future policies, because it's only been four months. Which is fucking stupid considering "it's only been four months" would be an incoherent response when dealing with something that has already occurred. I have seen nobody use that as a response when someone is talking about something Obama has already done but the OP is trying to paint this picture of it happening all the time. And THAT is what is bullshit.

As for your claim that it is perfectly obvious what future policy decisions will be, I envy you your apparent powers of precognition but am uninterested in debating the validity of your psychic insights.

[tavalon]

35. Nope, It's being used by the cheerleaders to stifle any complaint

It doesn't work well since we are a stubborn lot, we DUers. I've had it hurled at me when I got mad about Obama reneging on his promise to release the photos and when he tried not to include single payer at his summit and without fail, I was told I shouldn't criticize because Obama has only been in office __________ months.

Almost without exception, it gets brought up on any thread in which Obama is being criticized for anything.

[LostinVA]

45. BS

[gcomeau]

50. Oh joy, I take such pleasure in these substantive responses.

Allow me to reciprocate in kind with a response of comparable depth and value.

"Piss off."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. It is the responsibility of the citizenry to hold their servants accountable.

A responsibility often derided by supporters of said servants.

[jgraz]

11. We need to let history decide

Oh wait... that was the last guy.

[sohndrsmith]

13. I can only speak for myself, but (I think many may agree) that lots of us

who voted for Obama did so because of our stalwart belief in one's right to express one's views - including critical ones - without fear of intimidation or retribution. That was the modus operandi of how criticism was handled by those in charge for the previous 8 years.... In other words:

"I may not understand what you say, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it" - Albert A.

(I know a goofy example of creative license and the actual quote from Voltaire is more apropos, but I can never resist an opportunity to quote Kelly). : )

[jgraz]

14. Many of us supported Obama with the explicit plan to drag him to the left from day 1

We knew exactly what we were getting in Obama. The guy has talent and ability and charisma coming out his ass. And we imagined what would happen if he turned that brilliance toward true progressive causes.

So we ride his ass. Daily. It's called participatory democracy. Some people here should look into it.

[pkdu]

15. Spot ... fucking ... ON! n/t

[sohndrsmith]

17. Is that like marrying the wrong person because one fully believes they will "change"

him/her?

That sort of thing doesn't generally work, I don't think... I voted for someone because of what I saw and heard and read - not what I expected to transform my choice into - especially if that involved things I saw no evidence of... (but that's being a little stark, I know. Grey areas are rampant within this issue).

[Fire1]

18. And it won't work in this instance, either. Obama will do it HIS

way on HIS terms.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

22. Take a step back and think about what you just wrote.

Do you honestly think that Obama would have won this election if he'd explicitly given the left a take-it-or-leave-it attitude? You may have missed this, but those of us on the left are the activist base of the party. We were the ones phone-banking and canvassing and donating the limit to get this guy elected.

Do you really want to tell the base of your party to take it or leave it? Cuz I can guarantee you what will happen next.

[sohndrsmith]

57. I was responding to your post:

"Many of us supported Obama with the explicit plan to drag him to the left from day 1" - which prompted me to respond with a question.

After reading what I just wrote, again, I don't see anything wrong with asking such a question.

I think it's fantastic that you worked so hard fighting for Obama's election, but I don't recall describing my level of participation or anyone else's', nor do I believe that any vote has more or less value than another based on the level of involvement one chooses. I'm fully aware of the fact that there are many variations of "those of us on the left", but I find it counter-intuitive to competitively measure, or pit, one against another on this sort of assumption.

And I STILL don't understand the concept of voting or supporting someone based on the premise of turning him into (or dragging him, to use your word) something other than what he presented. That is what I gleaned from your statement, and that's what I was questioning with my simplified analogy.
Granted, the idea that anyone's interpretation of what they heard in is speeches, actions, etc. could be different is not only possible but plausible at the very least.

So, did you vote for Obama as he presented himself, or did you vote for what you intended to mold him into? I certainly don't need an answer, I just question the mindset.

If Obama has shown me anything, it is that he is uniquely and massively intelligent - politically, diplomatically, strategically... and so on. And because of this, I tend to believe that he is 10 (or more) steps ahead of me on any given issue (like he always proves to be), rather than assume that he's broken promises or is some sort of fakir who isn't the person I voted for.

Even on the things that I'm JUST as angry about as many other are, I am not prompted to freak out in protest because I believe that time will prove that - yet again - this president has, is, and will do things that initially seem contradictory but (so far, always) end up being brilliant and consistent and positive when all is said and done. I also understand that he is fallible like everyone else, and will most certainly make some mistakes along the way. He is not super-human, perfect, and he CLEARLY is not going to do things on your terms, my terms or anyone else's' terms but his own.

I say, more power to him.

[The Doctor.]

30. Really, it's about GETTING the talent you CAN into office you have a chance

of getting result from.

Hate to say it, but core reforms of the corruption in America ain't gonna happen with one candidate.

Obama has proven crafty and has a history of seeking to do good whether successful or not. I'll give him at least half a term of playing close to the vest before I start to give up on him. Criticize I will, but I don't discount opponents who quietly push a passed pawn in lieu of much better looking moves. I won't discount him yet... he beat Clinton for Christ's sake, he's got game.

I can guarantee one thing; We'll know who he's really playing for by 2017. ;)

[tavalon]

38. Politicians dance with the ones that brung 'em (paraphrased Molly Ivins)

Every politician knows this. We are his most active base and the fact that he occasionally forgets to dance with the ones that brung him doesn't mean we shouldn't remind him. He knew what he was getting with us when he courted us so ardently. If he really thought we would line up dutifully no matter what he did, he's not much of a politician. And since we know that he is the best politician of his generation, he knew exactly what he was getting. I think his biggest mistake is believing the DLCers he surrounded himself with when they tell him he can safely ignore us. He can't and he will understand that soon enough.

[tavalon]

37. Please jgraz, post this as on OP

Pretty please with sugar on top?

[jgraz]

43. mebbe this weekend

Right now, I don't have time to deal with the oh-so-predictable response that such a post would engender.

[tavalon]

46. If you decide you don't want to, can I repackage the concept

It's really good.

[riverwalker]

19. January 22, 2016

;)

[JVS]

27. And trash his legacy? How DARE you!

[solstice]

21. ITA. I think it's acceptable from day 1. It's obvious he knew from day 1 that he was going to go

back on many campaign promises.

Actually I believe he knew BEFORE day 1, since his speeches were so full of what people wanted to hear and then when he got in the White House he changed his tune of so many things.

[Fumesucker]

26. Well before day 1

FISA and telco immunity..

[tavalon]

39. Yep, those two helped me realize that I would be riding his ass a lot

and they help me to understand that he needs pushing.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Anybody got an animated GIF of moving goalposts? n/t

[Gregorian]

24. I suppose politics has always been three dimensional chess.

But that's why I voted for Kucinich in the primaries. He was what he was, and no fanfare or calculation. But his wife has a tongue stud. And he's SHORT! And ugly! So therefore he could never be president. Not to mention he wears his policies on his sleeve, and isn't fifteen steps ahead.

I'll tell you, while Obama spoke today about not dropping bombs, the bombs were dropping on his behalf. And I wondered just where the logic was. But still, I have faith in him. But then I no longer have that feeling toward Speaker Pelosi. So I guess the accepted time frame is whenever it is. It's kind of personal, and it depends on what happens. Maybe when the chess pieces finally take shape we'll know.

[tabasco]

25. Criticize him all you want.

Just stop your pathetic whining because others don't agree with you.

[The Doctor.]

28. Uhhh... pretty much whenever.

If it's a policy stance (read; 'explicit') between election and inauguration, go for it.

Any time after that, it's fair game. Keep in mind that 'inaction' does not indicate abandonment.

At this point, I think I'm beginning to see something I feared might happen.


When Obama was a community organizer, he did a little good, but realized that he couldn't make real change because the establishment was too entrenched.

He decided he could effect changes as a state legislator.

When Obama was a stated legislator, he did a little good, but realized that he couldn't make real change because the establishment was too entrenched.

He decided he could effect better changes as a US Senator.

When Obama was a US Senator, he did a little good, but realized that he couldn't make real change because the establishment was too entrenched.

He decided he could effect better changes as The President of the US...

[tavalon]

And then he realized he wasn't actually the most powerful man in the US

Yeah, I get that and I get that he's being pressured by the real powers that be. It doesn't mean I won't loudly criticize but I know that he has far less power than anyone realizes.

[The Doctor.]

54. It is sad...

But if anyone can outmaneuver the PTB, he's got a chance to do something.

[lamp_shade]

31. Have at it, but try to NOT use the words "I'm so disappointed". These words are usually a dead give-

away that the poster never supported Obama from the git-go.

[shadowknows69]

40. Wow, mind reading has always fascinated me

But shouldn't you be using that gift to fight crime or something?

[Canuckistanian]

32. Please refer to "Schedule D" in the DU Rules:Supplementary

It's right there in Section 16, Subsection 2, Paragraph 3, right after "DU Ralph Nader Policies".

[tavalon]

41. LOL, so true, so true!

[tavalon]

33. Don't worry, in two weeks the mantra will be "I't only been 5 months!"

In other words, that argument will be used until about two years in and then the argument will change to "He's trying to get re -elected. Wait until that happens before you criticize!" Rinse and repeat.

Ignore the choir. We need to hold his feet to the fire. He's way too competent at this to need such a flimsy defense, besides.

I want him to be the great President he is meant to be. I don't think he will be without out dissent.

[Dogtown]

42. Well within your rights

now if we only had a "carping and moaning" forum, you and your buds could sit in there and stew about it...

You know, like the Gungeon or the Tinfoilers...

[kentuck]

47. OK... 1...2...3...

Go!

[11 Bravo]

48. You're a big boy. Criticize as you wish. And if someone takes issue with your criticism ...

sack up and deal with it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. Criticize away. But... You can NOT criticize him for anything related to things he said during the

campaign, such as DOMA, and DADT, deficit spending, one brigade per month, and a host of other things.

After all, he was only saying what he needed to say to get elected, and that's how politics works, GET IT?

:sarcasm:

[MiniMe]

52. Criticize away, but make an actual complaint

The posts I object to are the ones who general complain that, for example, Obama sucks. We had 2 choices in November, Obama or McCain. We made the correct choice imho. He didn't run on being a progressive, he ran as a relative moderate. I haven't agreed with him on everything, and polar bears is just one of those things. However, I don't want him legislating from the White House either. I didn't agree with it when Bush did it, and I wouldn't agree with it if Obama does it. One thing that is true, change in Washington is slow. We barely have 59 votes now, and Ben Nelson is a thorn in the side. It is also the reason the republicans don't want Franken to be seated.

I also don't agree that the dems should get rid of the 60 vote threshold. The republicans toyed with it when they were in power, which was not that long ago, and they didn't do it. The power will shift again, don't know when, don't know what the other side will be, but it will happen. Had the republicans succeeded in overturn the 60 vote threshold, the dems would be sitting pretty right now. The dems successfully filibustered several of the judicial appointments under Bush, and thank God they had that ability. Unfortunately, they didn't make a stand on Roberts or Alito.

The President has to pick and choose his battles carefully. If he chooses to have a major battle about (insert cause here), then (insert cause here) may not get passed. There are so may things that are needed right now, it is hard to pick his battles. What is driving me crazy is that the insurance industry, through Baucas, seems to be running the the debate and negotiations on health care. But that is on congress, not Obama. We also don't know what is being pushed behind closed doors. The last administration ran the government by using such egregious abuse of power, we have almost fogotten what it should be like.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. The question must then be asked:

What is the accepted time frame in which Obama is expected to make good on all of his campaign promises or address everybody's "pet issues"?

From what I see here on DU, there are obviously a lot of people whom are upset that Obama hasn't moved faster or more aggressively on some issues (i.e. DADT, DOMA) and that's fine. They are entitled to their opinion and are free (and have been free) AFAIK to criticize Obama on it whenever they want (and certainly have not hesitated to do so- without fear of retribution AFAIK).

Some of us, of course, have a different opinion- that Obama is not going to have everything that needs to be fixed, fixed, within a few scant months and maybe even not within a year or two, and, well, we're entitled to express that opinion as well AFAIK.

So, criticize away! The DU mods are not running a "thought police" and aren't going to TS somebody AFAIK for simply expressing an opinion that they themselves might not agree with. But criticisms, however genuine or heartfelt, might still generate a dissenting opinion (albeit, hopefully, respectfully expressed).

[Kaleva]

55. Between 1:00 a.m. and 1:01 a.m. EST

I guess not everyone got the message.