Glenn Greenwald: Evidence Suggests Obama Not Committed to (or outright opposes) Progressive Ends

[amborin]

Obama v. Bush on power over Congress

snip

......so dominant was the Bush White House over Congress that Dan Froomkin, in 2007 -- when Democrats controlled both houses -- memorably observed: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed." In sum, nobody -- and I mean nobody -- was talking about how weak the presidency supposedly is before Barack Obama was inaugurated: neither in the domestic nor foreign policy realm. To the contrary, just a few years ago, the power of the Presidency was typically conceived of as far too robust, not too limited.

snip

The critique of Obama isn't that he tries but fails to achieve certain progressive outcomes and his omnipotence should ensure success. Nobody believes he's omnipotent. The critique is that he doesn't try, doesn't use the weapons at his disposal: the ones he wields when he actually cares about something (such as the ones he uses to ensure ongoing war funding -- or, even more convincing, see the first indented paragraph here). That evidence leads to the rational conclusion that he is not actually committed to (or, worse, outright opposes) many of the outcomes which progressive pundits assume he desires.

That's why Paul Krugman has been pointing out over and over that Obama wasn't helplessly forced into an austerity mindset by an intransigent Congress but actually believes in it, that he wants severe cuts. Identically, the evidence is now overwhelming that the public option was excluded from the health care bill because Obama wanted that outcome and thus secretly negotiated it away with the insurance industry, not because Congress or the 60-vote requirement prevented it. Similarly, while Congress did enact legislation preventing the closing of Guantanamo, Obama never wanted to shut it down in any meaningful way, but simply move it (and its defining abuse: indefinite detention) a few thousand miles North to Illinois.

The criticism isn't that Obama tried but failed to stave off austerity policies, a public-option-free entrenchment of the private health insurance industry, the preservation of indefinite detention or similar "centrist"/right/corporatist policies; it's that his lack of fight against them (or his affirmative fight for them) shows he craves those outcomes (just as nobody forced him to continue the vast bulk of the Bush/Cheney Terrorism approach he (and most Democrats) once so vehemently denounced). And whatever else is true, claiming that George Bush was similarly "weak" in the face of Congress is revisionist in the extreme.


snip

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[no limit]

1. Another example of this is them not having the Bush tax cut fight before the elections

when 70% of americans were against them.

[TheWraith]

4. You mean the fight that Congress refused to have? That one?

To listen to some people here, you would swear that not only is Obama a wizard who can do anything he likes, he's also the only Democrat in the entire federal government.

[no limit]

10. Did Obama ask congress to have the fight?

[TheWraith]

13. Right, because they did everything else he asked them to do.

Again: Obama is not a wizard. He doesn't get everything he wants just by asking for it.

[no limit]

14. So the answer is no, he did not ask congress (controlled by his party) to have the fight.

Why? And why do you think the democrats in congress refused to have this fight when 70% of americans were with them on it?

[TheWraith]

21. So anything he asks for, the Democrats give him?

That must be why the HCR bill included abortion coverage.

That must be why no Democrats voted to prevent closing Gitmo.

That must be why Congress passed the DREAM Act.

Oh wait... none of those things happened. In fact, the exact opposites happened. So spare me this nonsense that asking for something is somehow special. Would you explain why he would ask the House to do something that they already had told him very explicitly that they would not do? Other than to satisfy some people who think the sound of his voice is magical, or to look like a powerless fool.

[no limit]

27. You didn't answer my question.

Why did Obama not bother to ask a congress his party controlled to have this fight? And if congress didn't want to have this fight why didn't he fight with congress if you truly believe he felt strongly about this issue?

You also didn't answer why you think the democrats in congress refused to have this fight.

[frylock]

40. he doesn't even ask

[sabrina 1]

20. What are you talking about? The members of Congress I am familiar

with wanted to have to have that fight. Where are you getting this from? That decision was made by the Party Leadership and most people predicted that when it was made, and announced, that a deal had already been made. And those people were absolutely right as it turned out.

Prove what you just said please, because it does not gel at all with what actually went on. Ending the Bush Tax Cuts was a hugely popular issue with the public as was extending the UI benefits, and BOTH were taken off the table until AFTER the election. A stupid mistake? Or a deal already made. I think we know the answer.

[TheWraith]

23. And the ones who had to actually think about reelection didn't.

And no, the conspiracy theorists who went on rambling about non-existent "deals" were still crazy.

[sabrina 1]

37. So you admit that you cannot back up your claim, speaking of CTs.

Thank you, that's what I wanted to clarify.

[ProSense]

2. Here's a good read

A Word on Glenn Greenwald's Worldview


From the OP:

"Identically, the evidence is now overwhelming that the public option was excluded from the health care bill because Obama wanted that outcome and thus secretly negotiated it away with the insurance industry, not because Congress or the 60-vote requirement prevented it."

Greenwald is a clown!

[TheWraith]

3. Yep. Greenwald spares no expense to bash Obama, no matter how many fact he has to make up.

It's absurd.

[ljm2002]

35. What fact(s) did Greenwald make up?

Please make specific citations from his article. Looked to me like he backed up his claims factually, but I'm willing to take another look if you can point out where he made up stuff. And even if you can make a good argument as to why his interpretation of the facts is wrong.

[no limit]

38. You are asking a person that doesn't believe HCR was passed using reconciliation...

despite being made aware of that fact over and over again, to provide citations.

I wish you luck in that endeavor. :)

[slipslidingaway]

44. It's absurd that you only bash Greenwald without backing up your claim...

there are plenty of links in the Greenwald piece to back up what he says.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

12. The healthcare bill was passed using reconciliation. So a public option only needed 50 votes

and a tie breaker vote from Biden. But Obama specifically asked Pelosi not to include it in the final reconciliation bill.

So who is the clown now?

[TheWraith]

16. Your statement is patently false. HCR was not passed with reconciliation.

If you can't get basic facts right, why are you basing your opinions on them?

[no limit]

19. We had this discussion before. You already forgot?

Because in that discussion you had to admit you were wrong. If I remember correctly your argument was that only the fix to the HCR bill was passed using reconciliation, not the entire bill. While that is true your argument is dumb, because the public option could have been included in this fix.

But by all means, every time this is mentioned keep pretending that you don't know what you are talking about. Does pretending you are ignorant somehow make you feel better about this?

[Vinnie From Indy]

39. You are a one trick pony

I find it mildly amusing that you appear to have a sort of intellectual Tourettes Syndrome with only one manifestation - the blue linkies. What is amusing is that your links rarely if ever support your position on whatever thread you happen to be fertilizing at the moment.

Your link in this case is simply another Obama apologist that offers the same, tired nonsense about loving Obama or the crazies will take over and kill us all outright. It appears more and more that this meme will become the official slogan of Obama 2012. "Vote for us because we'll screw you just a little less than those other crazy bastards". Granted, the wizards of marketing will have to work on getting the slogan down to a sound bite that will fit on a bumper sticker, but the message is essentially the same.

Cheers!

[SidDithers]

7. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[no limit]

15. Sid. LOL....nt

[SidDithers]

22. Hi from DLC Underground...

or is it still Demogogic Underground?

I can never keep track of what they're calling us on those angst-ridden DU spin-off boards.

Sid

[amborin]

24. um, isn't it against DU rules to denigrate groups of DU posters?

[SidDithers]

29. Yup...

Which group of DU'ers do you think was denigrated?

Sid

[no limit]

26. "angst-ridden DU spin-off boards". You are right, there is a lot of angst

but it's not directed at this site, just the people that you have developed a cult-like relationship with to the point where you can't even give your opinion on an issue until after you hear what the offical white house position is.

Do you support raising the retirement age to 67? Can't answer that until you know what Obama wants.
What specific reforms do you think unions need? Nope, can't answer that because Obama hasn't said what he supports yet.
Do you think cutting heads off kittens is acceptable? Better not answer that in case Obama ever does it, would make you look rather silly having to defend that later on, huh?

As far as people calling this place DLC underground or Demogogic underground on my site or any other site that is their choice. I have my own opinions on that which I keep to myself. But I also believe in this crazy concept of allowing people to speak their minds no matter what opinion they happen to hold. Insane, huh?

[DirkGently]

8. Love the frantic, predictable, content-free attacks on Greenwald. He scares the $%&* out of them.

:D

[TheWraith]

18. What scares me is that people believe this fact-free nonsense.

It means they'll believe pretty much anything that plays to their preconceived notions.

[DirkGently]

32. Greenwald's making an argument. Do you have an argument in response, or just random slander?

[carolinayellowdog]

33. An argument based explicitly on evidence, ignored of course

When both evidence and argument are ignored in favor of a full-on personal assault on a progressive blogger by defenders of the White House... I marvel at what DU has become.

[DirkGently]

36. The bad faith accusations of bad faith are what's so astounding. Greenwald's what ... a Republican?

This relentless sniping and name-calling as though left-leaning commentators are the equivalent of rightwing partisans when they criticize the President is ludicrous. Greenwald supports liberal causes. Progressive themes. DEMOCRATIC ideals. Sure, he could be wrong in his thinking on any of those topics. Overzealous. Unfair.

What he's NOT is a closed-minded partisan looking to hurt Obama just because he's Obama. Attacking Greenwald as such IS close-minded partisanship, and worse, because it becomes this bizarre attack on "the left" from supposed Democrats.

I don't even see what the objective in a general tearing down of a commentator like Greenwald would be, for any Democrat. Agree here, disagree there? Sure. But attempting to just dismiss him as the enemy?

If progressives like Greenwald are the enemy, who in the WORLD are our allies?

[frylock]

41. start debunking. take your time. show your work.

[nashville_brook]

42. +1

[leftstreet]

9. K&R

[Solomon]

11. aw jeezuz h cuhrist!

How is that people have forgotten already that Bush's power came from the damn 9-11 attack?

Everybody and their mama was wearing stupid flag pins and reciting the pledge of allegiance.

To try to compare the two situations is just hateful.

[no limit]

34. 3,000 people die in 9/11 Bush can take away our freedoms, bankrupt us, and invade 2 countries

40,000 people die each year because of a lack of healthcare and the Democrats can't even get 50 votes for a public option (through reconciliation).

Please explain to me how that is supposed to make me feel better about the Democrats and this president in perticular?

[slipslidingaway]

45. Greenwald went on to list the bills passed in Bush's second term - FISA etc. nt

[meow mix]

17. k&r

[sfpcjock]

25. He pursues progressive ends when he can.

e.g.

DOMA, DADT, Nuclear Disarmament,

Green Energy - USDA Accomplishments in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/25/usda-accomplishments-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency

Affordable Care Health Care Act

Wall Street Reform

Maintaining low taxes on average people.

The article appears not to be well documented.

[amborin]

31. you cite White House press releases!

talk about not well documented!

please read up on these issues

HCR is a mandate to purchase a product from a private corporation

the Wall Street "reform" bill is a sham

just for starters

[CelticThunder]

28. k&r.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[slipslidingaway]

43. knr nt

[Karmadillo]

46. K&R

nt

[xchrom]

47. Interesting -- it's a List duel. Nt

[Kolesar]

48. "to continue the vast bulk of the Bush/Cheney Terrorism approach"

Fuck you , Greenwald