what are barack obama's flaws?

o

eoconservative---"right winter" whose prevailing interest is in "values" (which can range widely from the economic to the moral)

Not quiet true. Most neocons are "moderate" on social issues; their bugaboo is defense.

*quite

hey max, the two root words are "neo" meaning new, and "liberal", which may refer to any one of a few different political movements. do you see the confusion? i hope i helped you out!

sigh

maybe we can go over the difference between the american and european uses of the word "liberal" next

Not quiet true. Most neocons are "moderate" on social issues; their bugaboo is defense.

― Blue Fucks Like Ben Nelson (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, January 29, 2010 10:49 AM (30 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah that actually sounds more accurate. i guess it's kind of a rhombus/square thing to me: neocons are very likely to be neoliberal, but not necessarily vice versa

Not quiet true. Most neocons are "moderate" on social issues; their bugaboo is defense.

― Blue Fucks Like Ben Nelson (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, January 29, 2010 10:49 AM (20 seconds ago) Bookmark

i dunno, they talk about defense the most, in a "war makes societies great" kind of way, but the kristol's wrote all kinds of shit about how a victorian shame and propriety is some kind of ideal iirc. they weren't southern-style racists, is the thing.

(max i was trying to be funny)

god I fucking hate the Kristols

apropos of nothing...

ugh extra apostrophe there

xp

suzy, how about if you're a black writer like Adolph Reed Jr? I guess you made an assumption.

I guess you made an assumption about what I know! Which I'm sure you never, ever do to anyone who contributes here.

My complaint was that the description could seem 'racist OR patronizing' (and I was trying not to throw the skin of the writer in the game to prove a point/bait you).

(max i was trying to be funny)

― goole, Friday, January 29, 2010 11:52 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude

success?

Republicans Ready to Spar With Obama
By CARL HULSE

BALTIMORE — It’s the rumble in Baltimore as House Republicans take on President Obama today.

Gathered for a retreat in the Renaissance Hotel overlooking the blue-collar city’s famous harbor and historic Fort McHenry, members of the conservative Republican House Conference say they are itching to quiz the president and present their policy ideas rather than listen to another lofty presidential address.

“House Republicans welcome any opportunity to present our better solutions,” said Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican and the organizer of the House retreat.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/republicans-ready-to-spar-with-obama/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Obama's biggest flaw is that he's going to be taking Mike Pence seriously.

Bill Kristol shouldn't enter this discussion frankly, cuz he'd fuck his own mother with an MX missile if it got him RNC access.

I'm sure Reed would call Bill Clinton a smooth talker too.

I prefer "slick hustler" for both 42 & 44. (41 & 43 didn't achieve slickness.)

xxxxxp

Most neocons are "moderate" on social issues

idk, guys like podhoretz, allan bloom, saul bellow, are at least bigtime cultural conservatives, and had a p big problem with post-1960s um permissiveness (trying not to use liberal there, would cause confusion).

Bloom and Bellow are "fellow travelers."

allan bloom, damn, forgot about that m-fer

if o wants to keep identifying himself as the neo-reagan in these bizarre matrix times, he might want to take a page from how hard and how long ronnie went after carter, all the way till his re-election campaign i think? the bush disaster should be the political gift that keeps on giving, but somehow it hasn't been too much lately

dude were you not listening to his SOTU?! it was like %75 Dubya-bashing!

yeah i was listening and i want him to keep it up! all year through the midterms. not so sure mr. bipartisanship will be as consistent or good at it as reagan was, is all i'm saying, and bush is way, way bigger a target than jimmy ever was

the better extract in that Nation piece is from Dr. Marcia Angell:

As for healthcare, my area of expertise, the reform bill Obama is cobbling together wrongly retains the central role of the private insurance companies and requires millions of people to buy their products at whatever price they charge. True, some of the industry's discriminatory practices would be outlawed, but if that adds to their costs, they can simply raise premiums. The pharmaceutical industry can also continue to charge whatever it likes. If the bill is fully implemented (which I doubt), it may restrain the growth of government health spending, which is all the CBO cares about, but it will surely increase inflation in the rest of the system. Obama knows that a single-payer system is the only way to provide universal care while controlling costs, but he was unwilling to throw his weight behind it. All he seems to want now is the political victory of getting a health bill passed--any bill, no matter how untenable.

My sharpest moment of disappointment came when the administration supported the prohibition against buying lower-priced drugs from Canada and Europe. During his campaign, Obama promised to end this absurd restriction, but now he's siding with the pharmaceutical industry.

It's not enough to understand what needs to be done; the president has to be willing to fight for it and, yes, take political risks.

The biggest laff in the Nation piece, published about 12 days ago, is the handful who said Obama's apex is, of course, enacting healthcare reform. (Just one thinks to throw in "Assuming...")

well if I'm hauling out my cynic hat my favorite was the bit from the New Yorker editor whose gravest disappointment in the first year of the Obama admin is ppl who are mean to Obama

Obama can "take political risks" all he wants but if Congress won't pass it what the fuck's the point? I agree with every word Angell says except for this idea - which seems widely shared - that if Obama just somehow exercised his will more effectively, Congress would transmogrify into an assemblage of people who would actually vote for single-payer

"Why doesn't he use the magic wand?? I know he's got it in his pocket.. he just won't USE it!"

so we're back at "asking a guy to put himself on the line about something" = "asking for miracles"

plus ca change

I learned that from a Rush song btw

That's all takes I guess - all he has to do is "put himself on the line" and Congress will just fall like ninepins! Why won't he use the magic wand??

yup...zero people actually saying that, but if it makes you happy, I'm happy

well if I'm hauling out my cynic hat my favorite was the bit from the New Yorker editor whose gravest disappointment in the first year of the Obama admin is ppl who are mean to Obama

ugh hendrik hertzberg fuck him

I mean J0hn I could "put myself on the line" for a $20,000 raise this year, but it's not within the realm of the doable. Do you honestly believe that we would have gotten better results if Obama had started out demanding single payer? He would have fallen at the first gate. He would have been called a fantasist. It would have made this summer "Communism" stuff look tame. I don't think that's a stretch. And I can't see how that would be preferable.

Food for thought.

-- Josh Marshall

not "exercise his will," Tracer -- package and put makeup on his ideas, the way so many goddamn extremist GOP ideas got Dem votes for 8 years cuz they were so fundamentally American. Except I don't happen to think BHO has enough ideas, or the right ones.

(BHO doesn't even believe in single payer, despite his few limp words -- "if we were starting from scratch" -- to the contrary)

morbius you are asking for things only a magician could do! obama can do nothing! he is completely powerless forever!

not to re-rehearse this argument all over again, but i just do not see how this political system can or will enact the nationalization of health insurance companies. i can't see a course to even starting on the path to doing so.

curiously, i've never seen anyone take on this question: how happy are canada and europe with the prospect of subsidizing US drug consumers?

xps tracer otm

j0hn try again wtf

Do you honestly believe that we would have gotten better results if Obama had started out demanding single payer? He would have fallen at the first gate.

Maybe. I don't think so. "Single payer" isn't a monolithic concept. How do you imagine "single payer"? what does it mean?

one of the things Tracer won't address

My sharpest moment of disappointment came when the administration supported the prohibition against buying lower-priced drugs from Canada and Europe. During his campaign, Obama promised to end this absurd restriction, but now he's siding with the pharmaceutical industry.

of course, since he can't singlehandedly do this, asking for any movement at all on it is asking for miracles, and as we all know, he can't work miracles. so let's all be quiet about this.

I'm just really confused about what exactly "putting himself on the line" entails. And additionally how that - whatever it is - would have changed the dynamics in Congress.

There's certainly some amount that the President can influence things. But single payer? I wholeheartedly believe it is the only way to get affordable health care that covers everyone. I also wholeheartedly believe that there is no freaking way in hell that Congress - especially the Senate which basically includes no moderate Republicans at all - would touch it with a 10-foot pole. How smart would it be then, to put yourself "on the line" for a guaranteed losing position? That doesn't get you to some halfway point in which the goalposts have moved leftward from what we have today, that gets you sacked.

That's where we're at, Tracer.

The devil you know, etc.

"the president could have done this if he wanted to. since it isn't happening he must not want to"

^^ this argument makes too much of presidency to begin with, and the second clause presupposes the first.

frankly i think we'll never get single payer in the US, not because enough liberals don't want it badly enough, or because the Dems are too weak, but because the enemies of single payer are extremely powerful.

I'm just really confused about what exactly "putting himself on the line" entails. And additionally how that - whatever it is - would have changed the dynamics in Congress.

kinda straining for gnats here, aren't you? "putting oneself on the line," politically, means spending your camera time, and your stump time, and your committee time on an issue - attaching your name to it, so that when you're in the news, that's part of what you're in the news about. the amount of effort this would take from the president would involve one meeting with his staff in which he would tell them that this matter is a priority, and that they're to treat it as such.

such a meeting could only take place in a magical wonderland where human beings can fly & unicorns roam the meadows though, this thread has taught me that, so I'm realistic

You honestly think that single payer is a possibility in 2010 America

i do

Even Joe Namath couldn't get it passed with this Congress

Or, if we're being honest here, with this American public

joe namath, legislator

something like half country, a whole political party, most of its media, and every single last one of the winners in the current health care game, is skeptical to outright warlike against the idea of single payer health care. and yet, because we aren't talking about it, it must mean, obama is just too weak. "weakness" doesn't seem like the operative problem here.