Home > Uncategorized > Disappointed by Barack Obama?

Disappointed by Barack Obama?

December 17, 2009

When The Economist magazine endorsed Barack Obama for president, they admitted that he couldn’t possibly live up to the expectations of his fans.  And they were right.  And I think Democrats need to get a bit more realistic about who they can get into office: Saviors don’t go into politics.

When I vote, I have two things in mind.  One is my evil godless socialistic liberal agenda.  I want us out of wars and to have a constructive foreign policy instead.  I want single-payer, national health insurance, better regulation of financial markets, and a real priority on education (actual cuts in defense spending!).  I want full gay rights, urban bicycle use, environmental regulation with teeth in it, energy conversion, and while we’re at it, take a really hard look at tax-exemption for religious organizations. 

All those things are important to me. But my other goal is to keep really dangerous, delusional people from the reigns of power, and yes I’m talkin’ about you, Sarah Palin.  Disappointed Democrats apparently didn’t think hard enough about that as a specific goal of their vote.  To me, it’s even more important than the first goal.  “Not being John McCain” is not enough to make me deliriously happy, but it is enough to get my vote.  Faced with the lesser of two evils, I’ll pick the lesser and sleep soundly. 

Barack Obama took office in a country on fire.  He has right-wing loonies – congressmen and senators – trying to trip him up at every turn, telling lies about him, telling lies about his legislative agenda, and aided by media that thrives on idiot “we’re just askin’ questions’ equivalency.  The deficit was (and still is) headed for geosynchronous orbit, two wars going on, the judiciary and key government agencies packed with Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees.  You wanna blame somebody?  It’s all those people in the voting booth. 

So no, I’m not happy with everything Obama has done.  I had high hopes but you have to take anything a candidate says with a grain of salt.  But we can NOT let really stupid, dangerously ideological people take office.  It’s easy to lose sight of the damage they can do.

George Bush did a lot of damage in eight years, practically sunk this country.  Sarah Palin makes him look like a Rhodes Scholar.  It’s hard for people to see a catastrophe prevented as an accomplishment, because there’s nothing to see.  But the stakes of national power work that way.  As sure as you give a gun to a monkey, catastrophe follows stupidity.

NOTES:

  • Here’s a Obama’s promises kept, in the works, and broken.  Not bad, so far.

  • Eric Michael Johnson at The Primate Diaries says maybe we should be looking at the opinion industry if we want someone to blame.  Or at least, if we want to know what we’re really up against
  • Jason Rosenhouse at EvolutionBlog asks; “Is Obama To Blame?, and says “Show me the cards Obama should have been playing in this fight and I will reconsider. Otherwise, put the blame where it belongs.”  Go read why he says that.
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. December 17, 2009 at 09:44 | #1

    What you said.

    I still think the President could have done the right thing on Afghanistan, and gotten our nation out of that graveyard of empires. We have a lot to lose there, and nothing to win.

  2. gruntled atheist
    December 17, 2009 at 12:43 | #2

    Well said!  How easily we forget.  Just eleven months ago our country was a basket case.  I think that given the dire circumstances under which President Obama took office, he has done a remarkable job and I look forward to seven more years of thoughtful, intelligent leadership. 

    There is a list floating around of his accomplishments and they are impressive but easy to forget (I cannot find the list right now).  He at least saved us from the dimwitted egomaniac and the bimbo.  That is not nothing.

    It seems that I have wrongly accused Sarah of being an empty sack not capable of accomplishing anything.  I was wrong.  Making George Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar is a nearly impossible task and she does it so well.  My bad.

  3. December 17, 2009 at 21:03 | #3

    Yea. It just sucks cause he was a great shot for actually getting someone that could do some good. So I think it’s just a let down for those of us that really had some hope.

    On the Afghan thing, I think the only reason he did it was to keep some repub support. Which if that’s the case it was fucking stupid cause the repubs just want to stick a thorn in his side every chance they get. Blocking him makes them look like they are sticking up for something and fighting. Then at the same time it makes Obama look weak cause he can’t get anything done.

    Ughhh!!

  4. December 17, 2009 at 21:15 | #4

    It’s extremely doubtful that he escalated Afghanistan to get Republican support.  What he did do is solicit expert opinion and actually think about it first.  Also everyone seems to have forgotten that scaling back Iraq and escalating Afghanistan is what he promised to do in his campaign.  Disagree if you like, but it’s hardly a surprise. 

    He also promised to close Guantanamo and it looks like that’ll be checked off soon – to Illinois’ benefit.  And he’s accomplished some economic progress though we don’t all have our ponies just yet.

    And yet, the Republicans are waging a war of sabotage against the Obama administration.  Seems to be all they know how to do.

  5. December 18, 2009 at 15:18 | #5

    The Republicans would be doing what they were doing no matter which Democrat was in power. That’s the central truth that many Obama supporters failed to understand.

    As for what a disaster Bush was, except in the area of improving our relations with the rest of the world, Obama’s been as much of a disaster. His handling of the banking crisis, Iraq, the black sites and the related illegal actions, and his handling of health care are no different than a third term of Bush would have gotten us.

    The only thing that we’ve seen this time that we wouldn’t under Bush is the stimulus bill, which was about one fourth the size it needed to be, and has almost run its course now. We’ll be back in recession soon, thanks at least partly to the fact that the Democrats didn’t do anywhere near enough.

    None of what you wrote about what he’s facing is any different from what any other Democrat would have faced. Obama has deliberately chosen to do what he’s done, because those are his policy objectives. He had to face the hostile press and the teabaggers anyway, and I think he’s smart enough to know that.

  6. Admiralhall
    December 23, 2009 at 16:13 | #6

    We need to reset our expectations. Obama is doing as much as he can. The Money that is running the goverment is the problem. How much money did the insurance companies pump into Washington this year. To save this country we need to take the money out of Washinton. This is equivalent to putting a rope or camel through the eye of a needle. Obama is doing what I thought and as much as he can, He is leading from the center. Where would we be now in a McCain Palin administration?

Comments are closed.