Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Let's face it: Obama is a failure

I am afraid I just do not understand the relevant expectations....

If Obama were a dictator.... then I would say yes, hold him fully responsible. But we do have a congress with a constitutional role. If anything, these folks are the most beholding to corporate influence.

I would like to see any sort of evidence that corporate influence now is remotely like it was under tom delay and bush

Realistically, it is the case now and will always be the case that people with money will find ways to influence policy.

I really fail to see the logic by which anyone could reasonably expect that would change in 9 months by the election of any man as president.... take your choice.... Kucinich, Nader???? you tell me exactly how these folks would abrogate the influence of senators and congressmen? How exactly does that work?

Let's say Nader or Kucinich is president... how exactly do they get to universal health care without the congress?

amen brother gregg.

You know... I also wish that wish that corporations were not so big and powerful. I also wish that we could generate all our electricity with cold fusion... and that we could fuel our cars with ocean water.

Lets suppose for the moment that we close down all the coporations by devree... how does that work? WHo do we buy our galsoline form? Where do we buy our groceries? Who makes the cars and airplanes. Who runs the airlines and railroads?

Or, maybe the point is that of course we will still have corporations... we just should not bail them out?

Or maybe the point is that we should have corporations, but they should have no political influience.... ?

Don't get me wrong, I am not in love with corporations... but the cows have left the barn, the barn has burned down, the land has been sold a,d subdividesd, and a walmart hasd been built. If you want to get the cows back in the barn, it will be a rather long slog IMO.

OK, give me a reasonable scenario where someone get's elected preisent and is not a product of the system

Ardy...

This isn't about the rights of corporations to exist to provide necessary goods and services. Its about the right of the people to be in control of government...not corporatons/lobbyists. Its about having a government for and by the people. That's absolutely not the case today. Evidence flows from endless resources. Column after column, day after day, we see how corporations are buying out our elected officials.

The health care industry will let you die...or suffer because you might not have enough money to live Who do you think is preventing genuine health care reform?

What is wrong with public "only" finance of the election process? What's wrong with preventing lobbyists from inundating our elected officials to override the voice of the people, but support any cause...moral or not, for the general welfare of our nation...or not? These people don't give a damn about who they take their money from and who that money is shared with as long as it benefits the interest paying out big money to have an advantage over everyday citizens.

Should Corporations have influence in our government? That's not my bitch. Corporations shouldn't run our government! They do run our government as we speak and I don't know how that can be denied by any person who is in touch with current day events. Corporations shouldn't have more influence in order to create special rules to live by that the every day citizen doesn't get to take advantage of. We don't even get EQUAL rights in many cases.

The people are being pushed out of their role in the system. The people serve as virtually the 4th branch of government to maintain check and balance and to assure government doesn't rob us all of our freedoms and liberty.

Corporations are not only buying our government, but our media and press, which by the Constitution...should serve as our gardians of freedom...but that's coming to an end because free press isn't profitable to these corporations.

Obama...PROMISED, PROMISED that one of his first priorties of business was to significantly reduce the influence of Corp/Lobbyists. They've grown even more powerful. Why? Because he owes his soul to the company store!

Im sorry, Ardy...if I have to give up any of my rights and freedoms, I don't want to do it because they're no longer profitable to some corporations. That's what we're facing.

It's The System, Stupid...by Doug Thompson...check it out...see if it makes sense... Ardy...please know that the title of the article is not intended to be a slur against you. It does contain some viable points.

In the first place, we did not have the chance of voting for a thrid Bush term... much as so many of us would have wished to do so. So, I suppose that the best comparison would be with what could have been expected from McCain.

McCain made it clear that he thought we should have stayed in Vie Nam until we won. And that he applied the same standard to Iraq... he was in it for a definative victory by US troops. So... I guess the pooint we are making here is that that is also Obama's policy? It is a claim thaty is so far unsupported by fact... although I sup0pos e tha fact based arguement has lost much currency.

With regard to A fghanistan, I think that Obama made it clear that he felt the effort devoted to invading Iraq should have been focused upon Afghanistan. And so, actually Obama's increase of effort there representat a fulfillment of his campaign promise, Even though you might find that circumstance displeasing. And, given the presence of troops from germany, france, canada, and numerous other nations.... I find it diffcult to substantiate the fashionable position that this situation is simply another example of unilateral American imperialism.

Other than these examples... I would say that the majority of the world has a much more favorable image of Obama policy than they had of Bush. But, I suppose we can dismiss that reality out of hand in reaching our predetirmind conclusion that there is acutally no difference in Bush and Obama policies.

If everybody in this country were to vote for who they really thought best for this country (see above), that would be a mandate.
Congress would have to see the writing on the wall.

Obama campaigned from the middle.
And the middle is what he is doing.
Congress is reacting to that.

I didn't vote for him because of his war policies and his health care policies.
He never said he would provide universal health care, Doug. He always planned to keep the insurance companies in it. Not single payer.
Unless I'm reading you wrong.

Of course I'm relieved the last maniacal years are over with but I never expected anything really progressive from President Obama.

His war policy isn't a disappointment. It is exactly what he said.

He appears to be our first black President and there has been plenty of reaction to that. In fact, fear about it.
But he is also half white and he was raised in a white world.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Ardy...

In addition to my fairly lengthy response to your posting a couple of postings or so back...I would like to invite you to read my comments in which I was adding to a comment made by Checkers in the following link in the thread "God Help Us" .

Thomas Jefferson's Serious Concerns about "Corporations overly influencing Government"

Obama campaigned from the middle.
And the middle is what he is doing.
Congress is reacting to that.
[/quote]
I do not think where Obama campaigned from has any impact at all on the congress.... certainly not on the republicans.... and the blue dog democrats don't seem to care much what Oabam thinks either.

[quote=AustinRanter
It's The System, Stupid...by Doug Thompson...check it out...see if it makes sense... Ardy...please know that the title of the article is not intended to be a slur against you. It does contain some viable points.
[/quote]

Yes, I mostly agree with all that Doug wrote there....
and, IMO, if you follow the logic.... there is not a whole lot that Obama can do.... Maybe someone can interpret Dougs piece for me in a way where I can see that he would have the poswer to do something REALLY siginificant... other than perhaps launch a nuclear strike on Iran. But other than the. it seems to me that the powerful interests have well protected positions from which they cannot be easily evicted.

And if the point of this thread is....

OK, Obama is essentially powerless (because of the systemic problems that Doug identified).... and Obama has not accomplished much to change the system (because of the systemic problems that Doug identified)... even though he actually could not accomplish much (because to the systemic problems that Doug identified]... and therefore we define him as a failure (despite the systemic problems that Doug identified).

Is this what passes for trenchant political analysis these days? You see, it is not that I disagree with whether or not so very much has been accomplished. I am just looking at what is possible to be accompished (given the systemic problems that Doug identified) And if really not that much can be done by one individual (because of the systemic problems that Doug identified) ... then my standard for evaluating that person as a failure is apparently much differnt than Doug's standard.