Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Oct 18, 2009 in Politics | 12 comments

Liberals uneasy with power

It’s funny the way power influences people. It’s funny how power influences people that hadn’t had a sniff of it for a very long time. It funny how people react to power after never seeing it for (oh lets see) eight years.

President Obama’s recent town hall meeting saw a young boy ask the question ‘why do people hate you?’ Now, most observers instantly thought he was referring to the tea-baggers and other far right wing attacks he has faced this summer, but you could have also made the assumption that the young lad was referring to far LEFT wing attacks – and it is a good question to ask – why do people in your own party hate you Mr President (I know hate is a bit strong, but I’m going for drama here)?

Many progressive Democrats are not only blaming Obama but also looking to his Chief of Staff as the culprits to why ‘change’ hasn’t happened faster. Why hasn’t he repealed don’t asked don’t tell? Why hasn’t he passed health care yet? Why is he not fighting for the public option? Why hasn’t he ended the Iraq and Afghan war? Haven’t the Eemocrats got a veto proof majority?

“I’ll tell you why! It’s these damn blue dogs and moderate Democrats Rahm forced into our party. They’re are just Rethuglicans dressed as liberals!”

Obama had a choice when taking over the office from a popular two term president, he could either govern in the same narrow-partisan fashion or he could govern as a moderate with a liberal compass.

I know many will say that he made promises which he should keep, and I do understand that point of view, but campaigning for President and telling people what you would like to do is very different from governing and prioritizing your agenda based on what you feel is most important to the country you are serving, and whether liberals like it or not – not everyone in the country is a Democrat. If I remember rightly Obama did not win the presidency by 100%, so why should he force a liberal agenda down the throats after only 10 months in office?

And for me this fight between liberals and the White House is what’s making Obama’s presidency so fascinating. A president who is determined not to be led by political ideology but by necessity, a president that prefers to deliberate strenuously over sending troops to war (rather than follow his gut) and at the same time a president that is being haunted by his political party who are trying to force him to be more liberal.

Liberals have to except that this is what power tastes like. It tastes like Arlen Specter, it smells like Olympia Snowe. It may not be to everyone’s taste but this is the realities of being a majority party in America, a big tent party, a party that win election.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • superdestroyer

    The Democratic establishment is dominated by lawyers. Lawyers make their living second guessing and nitpicking the decisions of others. Thus, Democrats are very reluctant to make decisions. That is why they had rather set policy in the courts than in the legislature. If a judge says to do something, the politicians have someone else to blame for something that the politicians really wanted to do. Now that the Democratic Party is the one, relevant party in the U.S., they have faced with being blame for everything that will happen in the future.

    Also, liberals are extreme hypocrites who hide behind political correctness so that they avoid dealing with problems. Does anyone really believe that an administration of prep school, Ivy league educated attorneys will ever deal with crime, education, or immigration.

  • imavettoo

    Obama had a choice when taking over the office from a popular two term president, he could either govern in the same narrow-partisan fashion or he could govern as a moderate with a liberal compass.

    Popular president? What planet were you on the last 8 years? GW Bush was as popular as dog sh*t on new sneakers. And it wasn’t just “Liberals” who knew he was a worthless warmonger!

  • dn86

    @imavettoo- sarcasm my friend, sarcasm

    • imavettoo

      Needs work.

  • kritt11

    The real truth lies in Obama’s answer- NOT in the boy’s question. Liberals may be disappointed, but Obama understands that being president means that he will necessarily have to disappoint many people who feel he hasn’t met their expectations, as well as those who adamantly opposed him and his agenda in the first place. So some are going to accuse him of betraying liberal causes, others will feel he’s the second coming of Lenin. Its nothing that every leader that has attempted to govern as a moderate hasn’t met with, and Obama is mature enough to realize that -instead of choosing to play the role of a victim.

    He’s facing some of the most severe challenges in our nation’s history, but was left with nothing in the treasury but deficits by his predecessor to meet them. So I think he is doing about as well as can be expected given the partisanship that tears this country apart on a daily basis.

    • casualobserver

      Yes, there were deficits in the Bush years…….but Obama deficits in one year are larger than all of Bush’s combined…ineffectual deflection· This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President Bush.· The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.· The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.· One would expect the post-recession deficit to revert back to the $150 billion to $350 billion budget deficits that were typical before the recession. Instead, by 2019, the President forecasts a $917 billion budget deficit, a public debt of 77 percent of GDP, and annual net interest spending of $774 billion.· The White House projects $10.6 trillion in new deficits between 2009 and 2019—nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing.· None of these estimates include the cost of health reform.

      • Don Quijote

        Yes, there were deficits in the Bush years…….but Obama deficits in one year are larger than all of Bush’s combined…ineffectual deflection

        The deficits that exist today are the consequences of the Bush policies…How Trillion Dollar Deficits are createdAmerica’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

        The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

        Bush has just completed eight years in office, Obama has only been there nine month.PS. I don’t remember hearing to many Conservatives or Moderates bitch when Shrub cut taxes, forgot to regulate and just plain drove the economy over a cliff.

        PPS. The last two presidents who actually balanced a budget were named Clinton & Johnson.

        • JeffersonDavis

          There is no argument that Bush did, indeed, create the current deficit.
          That’s a no brainer. It’s one of the reasons I did not like GW Bush as President.

          But make no mistake, President Obama’s policies will double what “W” left behind.
          We are spending at a rate that cannot be sustained. Most liberals agree with that statement because it is impossible to ignore. Can Obama reduce the deficit as Clinton did? Not without drastically raising taxes.

          And I don’t know about you, but I cannot afford more taxes – it’s tight already in my house.

  • superdestroyer

    All of the spending in FY09 was approved by the Democrat controlled House and Senate. If Democrats cared about deficits, they could have voted them down.

    Also, how cares what the Republicans did in the past since the Republican party is irrelevant. The real question is how high will government spending go in the coming one party state. Will the Democrats be willing to increase taxes and cut spending during the boom times.

  • kritt11

    Well, I’m no economist, but I think he had to put the stimulus bill into motion– the market was crashing and unemployment has not been this high since the Great Depression.

    And where he has talked about making some cuts in Medicare– the GOP has been up in arms — getting the Seniors galvanized against it.

  • Leonidas

    But make no mistake, President Obama’s policies will double what “W” left behind.

    Triple according to the official released figures, 1.4 trillon.

    U.S. Budget Gap Hits Record $1.4 Trillion
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8847568

    Still, it was more than three times as large as the $459 billion deficit racked up in the prior fiscal year

  • DLS

    Dalitso, you need better sources if you believe Obama and his fellow libs are uneasy with power.

    That they are inept and out of touch with reality, and with so much of the public, is what their behavior has shown from the start. But uneasy with power? Among their other sins is an excessive [ab]use of power and growth of (and centralization) of power in Washington. Where else in the world (or elsewhere) have you been?

    Having to occasionally concede to reality (disgraceful events like Van Jones; the most pathetic kinds of “outreach” lately with the likes of Olympia Snowe, who should be a Democrat; the failure to please the more radical and even more unrealistic ambitious lefties, who are making all kinds of noise now about health care “reform,” in particular, demanding they get more of what they want, even if so many more do not) in no way constitutes a “great compromise” or “shattering of dreams” except among the delusional.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com