I was an ardent supporter of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries of last year. Obama campaigned, correctly saying that he, alone, of all the candidates, could build a new coalition of voters in America by talking straight and confronting decades-old national problems. He promised a new kind of politics and he delivered, rising above the crazy politics of personal destruction still so often played by conservatives.
Barack Obama was America's best choice for president last November. That fact still remains.
But Obama has made several costly mistakes as president. Costly for America.
The new president's biggest error, I think, was his stance from the beginning that he would not pursue investigations or prosecutions of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney's administration's numerous crimes and acts of treason. Mr. Obama explained that "looking forward" rather than backwards would be his practice more often than not. Obama explained that the pressing issues of our day would get sidelined in some grand spectacle if the rule of law was followed in regard to the Bush administration.
All the "oxygen" in Washington D.C. would be sucked out if Bush and Cheney were held accountable…..and no oxygen would be left for health care reform, global warming legislation, card check, re-regulation of the banksters, etc. That was, and still is, Obama's argument. It's a losing argument.
If Obama would have appointed a special prosecutor from the get go to deal with the past administration, Americans…Republicans, corporate-media whores, would have realized the new president meant business…..wasn't just going to f*ck around. But he didn't.
Now, even though Obama has not gone after George and Dick, you know, to save all that political oxygen, his opponents have pounced on his refusal as a sign of weakness and are feverishly working to deprive Obama from breathing life into his campaign plans. While Obama was preserving political "oxygen" by refusing to re-instate the rule of law in America, his opponents were sucking all the political oxygen from Obama's new presidency by continually repeating the craziest sh*t imaginable, lying and propagandizing at every turn.
Which brings me to the next mistake by Obama. I realize that talk of bipartisanship is usually just that….talk….but with Obama, bipartisanship has not just been talk. It's been a feature. While it is true that Obama got three GOP votes for his stimulus bill….that's basically been the extent of any Republican cooperation.
There are no more "moderate" Republicans left, with possibly the exception of Olympia Snowe (R-ME). There's literally no Republicans left to be bipartisan with. Obama was correct in sensing that the voters wanted bipartisanship, wanted cooperation in order to get stuff done, he was right that the "old politics" had worn out it's welcome……where he was wrong was in assuming that today's Republican Party was something other than a calcified fossil of radically partisan status quo-ism. Where he was wrong was in assuming he had honest-brokers in today's Republicans. He doesn't.
Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and their cheerleaders, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, et.al. are anything BUT negotiating partners. To these leaders of the modern GOP, bipartisanship is a disease to be avoided at all costs when Democrats are in power. And bipartisanship, when Republicans are in power, is considered date rape.
So, why the foolish notion by Obama that bipartisanship must always be considered, must be first and foremost in any of his political dealings? Beats the hell out of me. On this one, I am completely stymied.
If Obama is looking to hold moderates and independents by acting oh-so-bipartisan……it's working out just the opposite. By not standing up to the crazed and radicalized Republicans, the new president has shown moderates and independents that he is weak. Current polling suggests that independents and moderates have caught on to that weakness and don't like it.
Does all this portend a return to power of the insanity-filled party of Bush? Not likely. It just means that conservatives will get their way for now…..nothing of much value will be accomplished for the American people during Obama's first term.
Oh well, there's always another election around the corner. The answer to our national paralysis is…….more and better Democrats.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
This one's funny, Reverend. It's like saying the biggest problem with Coke is that Pepsi sucks.
I disagree with Rev’s thinking about the first mistake. The President’s biggest mistake was to give unquestioned power to Congress for both the Stimulus and the Healthcare (Insurance?) Reform Bill. The president was far more favorable than Congress and he didn’t utilize all that goodwill. Surprising too, since he’s in office for 4 more years while many in Congress have elections in 2 years to worry about. He had higher approval and a longer window to get it back in case opinion changed, yet he let the group with lower approval, fewer convictions, shorter windows and closer ties to special interests create the bills.
For the most part, I believe prosecuting Bush and Cheney is only important to the far far vengeance filled left. I haven’t seen a poll (but I’m sure Rev can find one which disputes me) but I think your average American doesn’t care either way. To steal a phrase from Soros, “move on”. I don’t think the president has lost any favorable / unfavorable points or political capital because of this issue. In fact, he’s got the best of both worlds now with AG Holder playing bad cop and he staying above the fray to play good cop.
As for the mistake with bipartisanship though, I completely agree. There are very few moderate Republicans in the Congress willing to work with the President. Because most of those moderate conservatives were replaced with moderate liberals. I think bipartisanship should have happened within the Democrat’s own party. That would be an easier negotiation than getting the hardest of the hardcore right to abandon the core of their beliefs. If only that moderate democrat / moderate republican could split off into a 3rd party I think we could have far more consensus on many issues. A senator or rep could vote for abortion rights and still vote against gun control without being labeled a RINO or Blue Dog and have the threat of the national committee heads pulling their campaign money.
Lastly… Larry you cracked me up big time. I’m going to steal that line, if its ok with you.
It amazes me that you want an ex-U.S. President and V.P. investigated, when you really know nothing about what went on. Obama knows what went on. He inherited the football and the playbook. I believe that if he saw true crimes, he would be all over it. In reality, he knows the severe consequences that come with witch hunting past leaders. You see, there are a lot of things that you and I don't know. Therefore, we will NEVER be able to come close to making factual statments on these irrelevant Blogs. We know nothing about any of these topics(war, terrorism, WMD's ,etc)
When you start going after every President for what they did, it will make give next President stagefright, and make him afraid to make quick, hard decisions for fear of future prosecution. I know people that think that U.S. interventi0n in WWII was wrong, and amounted to a crime. Who escalated Vietnam? What about Bosnia?
You really need to be careful what you wish for, Rev. I believe this nation is the closest to violence and bloodshed that is has ever been, in my 40 years alive. As a matter of fact, I consider it to be a powder keg, and any spark will set it off. Then, we will be thanking Cheney for all of the nice accommodations at the high-fenced Halliburton Camps.
Reasonable last paragraph, dd.
Law and order applying to the executive branch, I don't think, is a vengeance issue only held in the bizarro brains of us lefties. It would seem like it would be important for the stability of any democratic nation for the law to be respected and obeyed. I realize that many on the right can't find any lawlessness in the Bush administration.
And to one-liner-larry…….the biggest problem with American politics today, other than the campaign bribes, is the disattachment Republicans have from reality. People like one-liner-larry pretend that the GOP is not completely insane while he does his best to promote their deceptions and lies.
You're babbling, Reverend.
This…..I don't even know what to say about this…..
" You see, there are a lot of things that you and I don't know. Therefore, we will NEVER be able to come close to making factual statments on these irrelevant Blogs. We know nothing about any of these topics(war, terrorism, WMD's ,etc)"
Where in the world have you been? Who in the hell outed the many Bush-Cheney crimes? It sure wasn't the corporate-whore media. Whether you like it or not, whether non-reality based conservatives like it or not, the blogosphere is driving the discussion. Not my little blog…but the main liberal blogs….they are driving the discussion because they are constantly screening for the facts and are relentless in doing so.
Obama, as a Constitutional scholar, should surely know that the Constitution mandates that the president is required to enforce the law. It gives no latitude of choice. No exceptions during a time of war, declared or not. No exceptions when it is politically inopportune. He is in violation of his oath of office. We are dead as a democracy.
As a doornail.
"rising above the crazy politics of personal destruction still so often played by conservatives."
That is freaking hilarious, Rev. Ask Palin about the politics of personal destruction.
Ask the townhall protesters. Ask Joe the Plumber. LIberals INVENTED the politics of personal destruction. Ask Bork or Alito. Ask Glenn Beck. Ask anyone who ever crossed liberals. Y'all call us racists, fascists, nazis, wingnuts, phony, astroturf, unamerican, brooks brothers, a mob, and blah, blah, blah. Lie after lie after lie, all intended for purposes of personal destruction.
What a bunch of bs. And I can't think of a President since Nixon who has gone after his enemies like Obama has, and even Nixon didn't do it on an almost daily basis. Obama just sends out his minions to do the dirty work for him.
Your problem with projection is really beginning to deepen. I'm worried.
Pyroclastic – I know you and I have disagreed on these forums many times but this is one of the most brilliant statements ever written on this subject. (I guess it's brilliant because I feel and think the same way. A tip of the hat to you!)
Pyroclastic Flow August 28, 2009 at 2:30 pm
It amazes me that you want an ex-U.S. President and V.P. investigated, when you really know nothing about what went on. Obama knows what went on. He inherited the football and the playbook. I believe that if he saw true crimes, he would be all over it. In reality, he knows the severe consequences that come with witch hunting past leaders. You see, there are a lot of things that you and I don't know. Therefore, we will NEVER be able to come close to making factual statments on these irrelevant Blogs. We know nothing about any of these topics(war, terrorism, WMD's ,etc)
When you start going after every President for what they did, it will make give next President stagefright, and make him afraid to make quick, hard decisions for fear of future prosecution. I know people that think that U.S. interventi0n in WWII was wrong, and amounted to a crime. Who escalated Vietnam? What about Bosnia?
You really need to be careful what you wish for, Rev. I believe this nation is the closest to violence and bloodshed that is has ever been, in my 40 years alive. As a matter of fact, I consider it to be a powder keg, and any spark will set it off. Then, we will be thanking Cheney for all of the nice accommodations at the high-fenced Halliburton Camps.
Just trying to show you the one-sidedness of your crazy allegations, Rev.
All that from folks who were in favor of bringing Bill Clinton up on impeachment charges.
No political witchhunts unless the politician is a Democratic President…..then political withchunts over consensual sex threatens the very foundation of the western world.
Gives this…."afraid to make quick, hard decisions for fear of future prosecution"….an entirely different meaning, doesn't it.
You're right, Reverend. Clinton ruined Oval Office hum jobs for all of his predecessors.
larry d.,
Which of Clinton's predecessors got "hum jobs"? Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon? Do tell!
Rev,
Excuse me, dumbass, but I wasn't in favor of impeaching Clinton, as I've told you several times before. Do you EVER stop lying ?
I meant to say those who followed, frank. Good catch.
Dear King….
I have made an error. You weren't for impeaching Bill Clinton and I apologize for making that mistake.
Sincerely,
The Reverend
Just for fun….read larry's last few comments….and tell me, do you think he's losing it? I have concerns. While larry and I rarely agree, that's America…..and I always welcome his quick hitters. However, those last three comments, I would challenge anyone to explain. frank had a go of it…..and it just got worse.
They make sense, Reverend. I made an error, frank caught it, and I congratulated him for his work. I am happy to see that you two are trying to gang up on me, however. It's fun.
Rev,
Apology accepted. Thank you. I apologize for the name-call.
No, I don't think larry is losing it at all. I think many of his comments go over liberal heads, to tell you the truth. They make sense to me. He just got a word wrong. That's all. We all do it. I knew what he meant.
I'm starting to think liberal and conservative minds are just wired differently. Liberals have functioning compassion circuits, but their logic circuits are broken. I imagine you'd disagree.