5th September 2011, 12:55 PM #1
It ain't Obama or the Government, it's the system itself
according to Robert Parry of Consortiumnews...
"...one of Obama's early mistakes was in surrounding himself with advisers who were committed to making today's broken-down system work, rather than undertaking a dramatic overhaul of the entire process.
Many top aides were recycled officials from the Clinton administration, including White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Some were longtime Republican operatives, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates, or bureaucrats closely tied to Wall Street, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Together, their limited vision was confined to simply patching up the old system - both domestically and globally - achieving more "continuity" than "change" from the Bush administration. While that might have been understandable given the economic crisis and the two wars, their approach shut out any serious structural reform.
So, instead of subjecting the gambling banks to the shock of short-term nationalization and stringent new rules, Obama continued a policy of stabilizing them with taxpayers' money. Instead of terminating the stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he kept them going with promises of gradual withdrawals.
Instead of demonstrating that the United States really meant what it has said regarding international law and human rights, Obama let Bush and his subordinates off the hook on torture and other war crimes. He didn't even authorize a serious public inquiry into these abuses.
Granted, to have taken these actions would have risked a major disruption to the system as it now exists. You would have heard howling from the trading floors of Wall Street to the editorial-page offices of the Washington Post. Obama would have been called an angry black man, an out-of-the-closet socialist. Conservative Democrats and independents might have bolted."
Some of this is probably true.
5th September 2011, 03:06 PM #2
Join, or Die
Originally Posted by zitiboy
But it IS Obama. Obama himself could have done a lot more about all this. Instead, he sold out - again, and again, and again...
That's the whole point. LEADERSHIP is required, not this namby-pamby conciliatory crap. Dance with the devil, get your toes stepped on. The American Peoples' feet are hurting right now. Too much dancing with the devil.
Yes, of course you're right - the system - things like: get rid of the corporate financial influence(s) - but Obama could be championing stuff like that, and he's not. Just about every President has said his greatest weapon is the bully pulpit - and what's Obama using his for? More namby pamby feel good stuff.
5th September 2011, 03:30 PM #3
Semantic Secret Service
Funny, but I don't "feel good" after one of Obama's speeches. They inevitably signal his next area of capitulation. He gave a speech on not extending the tax cuts to the rich. He caved. He gave a speech on his support for labor jsut before he sold them out. He gave a speech on a "balanced approach to debt reduction" and then caved again. Spotting a trend here? I am.
Originally Posted by nonsqtr
5th September 2011, 04:12 PM #4
Well, you can grab the chalk and redirect focus onto Obama if'n you want, I was interested in the demonstrable, big-picture stuff.
It's amazing how many non-conservatives seem to think Obama should've been the perfect president, that he's accomplished nothing of note, and he's just as bad as McCain/Palin. Looks like the relentless noise-machine from the right pays off.
The article points out that his failures are not really suprises, and the Obama admin has said from the start that the recovery was going to take long...maybe longer than 4 yrs.
I'm not ready to throw Obama and the dems under the bus yet, the alternative is too scary.
5th September 2011, 05:56 PM #5
This is what happens when Liberals believe campaign rhetoric without understanding that it is just that: rhetoric.
5th September 2011, 07:05 PM #6
It's a brilliant premise. They have now changed the concept of what a leader is entirely by blaming "the system".
They're absolutely desperate. I mean how on earth could a no-body with zero experience and a dubious past NOT be a great leader?
He was the fricken candidate of the erudite ! No way in hell could they have misjudged him. He read a teleprompter so convincingly and he was black.
Yep, it's got to be "the system"
Tags for this Thread