Wingnuts

Firebagger Insanity of the Day

I present the following from Firedoglake for your Monday morning blood pressure.

Worst President Ever, Revisited
By: Eli Friday July 8, 2011 6:01 pm

No, I’m not ready to crown Barack Obama the Worst President Ever just yet, but consider this:

Yes, George W. Bush wrecked our economy, destroyed New Orleans, turned a budget surplus into massive deficits, ignored warnings of a major terrorist attack and used that mistake to lead us into two disastrous military quagmires…

But he also pushed relentlessly for conservative policies and delivered for his base with war, deregulation, tax cuts, environmental rollbacks, and an army of right-wing ideologues embedded in the federal government and judiciary. He failed to privatize Social Security, but not for lack of trying.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, inherited a mess rather than creating one. But not only has he failed to create jobs or restart the economy, he has paid only lip service to progressive policies and betrayed his base at almost every turn.

Instead of using the financial crisis or the current debt hysteria to push through a progressive agenda like Bush used 9/11 to push through a conservative one, he’s using them as an excuse to capitulate to Republican budget chickenhawks, and even to cut Social Security and Medicare....

It continues here. Click if you dare.

These people are so hopelessly divorced from reality, it's almost hilarious. Almost.

(Via John Cole)

  • Firebaggers believe they’re the real backbone of the progressive/liberal movement in reality they do more harm then good. At least the average right winger has an excuse they’re stupid but people who are firebaggers know what will happen if the Republicans take over but still they either chose to sit out or vote for some loser running on the Green Party side. And the thing that piss me they allow the great right wing takeover and they want complain with the rest of us that tried to prevent the takeover.

    Look at Wisconsin how many of those protesters were firebaggers? They sat home using the meme “Obama disappointed me so I’m staying home” now they’re screaming like someone sat their asses on fire because Scott Walker and his flying Republican monkeys in the state legislature are going after them.

    Here in Michigan it was a cluster fuck of firebaggers, a state Democratic Party that couldn’t get the message out and a media that protected and propped up Rick Snyder. Virg Bernero was everything firebaggers claim they wanted in a Democrat yet they didn’t show up and matter of fact they allow the right wing slate on the Republican side capture the offices of AG, SOS and along with Republicans having a super majority in both chambers in the state house.

    I support the brothers and sisters in the recall Rick Snyder movement but we shouldn’t need a recall if a segment of the Democratic Party didn’t take their ball and gone home.

    The thing that make the firebag movement hypocritical is this look at their “leadership” Jane Hamsher has ties to right wing groups, attack unions and her firm help Republicans beat Democrats, Cenk Uygur is a self admitted conservative Republican, Glenn Greenwald an libertarian who endorse a right wing Republican Gary Johnson for president but since he whines about Bradley Manning and rail up firebaggers by talking about government programs he doesn’t care about because libertarians don’t believe in those programs they give him a pass.

    • incredulous72

      First time I’m hearing about the politics of these folks (Hamsher, Greenwald and Uygur). Good Grief! No wonder we can’t get our shit together; 1/3 of the party is being hoodwinked by REPUBLICANS!!!

      I was never a fan of any of these individuals; they all seemed rather suspect to me, but I just thought they were disaffected motormouths. Now it seems they are purposely sabotaging the party and not because they are disaffected but because they were never really for the Democrats to begin with.

  • MarshallLucky

    That’s a pretty dumb article, though I fail to see why the trite ramblings of some nobody on FDL is newsworthy.

  • ranger11

    This seemed like fun. I need to check the internet everyday!

  • gofyaself

    Rather than just list all the shit this guy has done, here’s none other than Rachel Maddow. I hear she’s kind of liberal. And this doesn’t even come close to listing all the accomplishments:

  • Hey Bob,

    Just get back to us after Obama cuts Social Security and Medicare.

    • MarshallLucky

      Which will of course be all Congress’s fault. Just like every other bad thing that’s happened in the last two and a half years.

      • ranger11

        No, it will be Bush’s fault.

  • mrbrink

    Likala, thankfully, posted these links recently, and they were re-posted once or twice, but it’s worth repeating.

    POLITICS 101 FOR THE FAR LEFT: LESSONS #1 THRU #9

    Author’s comments are enlightening, as well.

    and

    TO THOSE WHO CONSIDER PRESIDENT OBAMA A DISAPPOINTMENT; YOU’RE JUST NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

    Pretty much says it all, but of course people who title pieces, “Worst President Ever,” when they’re talking about President Obama have obviously lost the ability to reason.

    Posts titled, “Worst President Ever, Revisited” are hack-amateur and serves to depress voter turnout, empowering lock-step right wing nuts, weakening a Democratic party presidency that accomplished and signed more progressive legislation than anyone in modern American history.

    Good luck with that “progressive” political strategy, Eli and company.

    • incredulous72

      Loved these posts that Likala made us aware of earlier.

      Thanks for reposting them MrBrink.

      Individuals that print rubbish like that post “Worst President Ever” more than likely didn’t vote for Obama, nor will they in the next election.

      And this is just my opinion, but those firebaggers that post nonsense like that are not regular everyday Americans that are in major dire straits as a result of the previous administration’s actions and the present majority in Congress’ inaction. They are not Americans who are suffering. They are opportunists, which is why they could care less that their actions or lack of action are hurting “Real Americans.”

  • Okay, this is getting ridiculous.

    The Firebaggers are not our “enemies”? HUH???? Have y’all been READING what they freaking type?

    They plan to primary Obama or sit out the damn vote again. If that does not make them an enemy to all that matters in this country, if their complete inability to face reality means I have to play nice with them because they’re not Republicans, well, screw that.

    Too many of you seemingly have no idea what we’re up against, but I very much fear that you will find out in 2012.

    • Scopedog

      “Too many of you seemingly have no idea what we’re up against, but I very much fear that you will find out in 2012.”

      Well…if 2000 and 2010 are any indication, it seems that some of them will simply not care. The meme that Obama is useless is probably too far buried in most minds, and it will be darned near impossible to remove.

  • Too many firebaggers, and those of us who disagree are being drowned out in this thread.
    Part of the deep bag of firebagger tricks is the use of language, i.e., the “I’m engaging in reasonable discourse if I don’t say ‘fuck you'” which seeks to deny those of us so inclined the ability to use such language unless we care to be constantly called on it.

    It’s pure bullshit in my opinion.

    What’s in a word? The origins of the word “FUCK” http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fuck#Origins

    Get over it already. It is just a WORD, for Christ’s sake.

    • incredulous72

      Nicole, I agree with you on almost everything, and I’m not opposed to the word Fuck. As a matter of fact, my favorite is, Muthafucka. 😉

      However, expressing yourself is one thing, and being disrespectful is another. Some of US (and I say US because I’ve been following this blog since it started and posted off and on for about three years) are being disrespectful to others that for the most part are on our side.

      Now disrespecting right wing trolls that come in here and spew bullshit, fine. Disrespecting those that have a difference of opinion but are clearly on our side, that’s something else entirely. What makes us different (and to a great degree BETTER) than the drooling right wing lunatics is that the Dems have varied ideas on things. Now firebaggers that come in here mouthing off about how Obama has failed and calling him weak on negotiating and how they’re all infuriated with him . . . well, we should treat them the same as the trolls. However, clearly there are some that come to comment that are not looking for a fight and they get pounced on like a mouse by a barred owl.

      My point, we should be uniting, not dividing. Right wing trolls and firebaggers aside, we shouldn’t look at every criticism of Obama as a firebagger trying to pick a fight. The more we increase the decibels of sane liberal voices in the blogosphere the more we get to drown out the firebaggers and the right wing batshit crazies.

      • Incredulous, with all due respect, why should I show respect for people I have no respect for??
        I have no respect for 99.9% of those who call themselves “Republicans”.
        I have little respect for those whom we call Firebaggers, most of whom are completely unaware politically, and are working toward opposite ends, i.e., they would love to see Obama replaced.

        The Firebaggers who comment on this blog seem to me to be here for one reason, and that is to spread their own stupidity and discontent. Arguing with them is pointless because they are not very savvy politically, and they are very caught up in their meme, a meme created by the opportunists who exploit them.

        Now, all that said, I would not ever tell a person I respected “fuck you”, because of course, that is disrespectful. BUT, I doubt I can ever be convinced to respect or be respectful of the people (Cons & FBgrs) who are assisting in the downright, literal destruction of this country. Even if some of them don’t get it.

        • incredulous72

          I completely respect your point of view and I wasn’t referring to being respectful towards right wing trolls and firebaggers.

          I’m just saying that sometimes those that you suspect of being firebaggers may not be, and not all criticisms are necessarily firebagger criticisms.

          BTW, I do enjoy greatly seeing you take the trolls down. 😉

          • You may be right in that perhaps not all of them are Firebaggers. But, for the most part, I have a pretty good feel for those who are and who aren’t. At least I think I do. 🙂

  • jjasonham

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

    Obama’s level headedness is being viewed as dispassionate by the firebaggers, and it drives the GOP crazy, but it removes the oxygen from both of their flaming craziness. The accomplishments of this administration destroy the credibility of both of those groups as well. The firebaggers have just as much incentive as the GOP to perpetuate anything negative about this President. That incentive is survival in a world where people can see past their outrageous rhetoric. People complain about how much Bush was able to ram through, but he had a much more compliant Congress.

    Obama keeps providing more and more rope for the GOP to strangle themselves, and it happens like clockwork. Obama’s first term is full of big steps in the right direction. In this hostile political environment, that is phenomenal. 2012 will be a great year.

    • Scopedog

      “The accomplishments of this administration destroy the credibility of both of those groups as well.”

      This is certainly very true–and all one has to do is look them up.

      The problem, sadly, is that both of the groups will claim that the achievements don’t matter, and in the case of the Firebaggers, they’ll toss in the beef that because Obama did not go after Bush and Cheney and company, because he didn’t grab them by their daddybags and drag them to trial (all by himself, mind you) and then toss ’em in jail and lock the door and toss the key into the Marianas Trench–then all the achievements of his Presidency so far don’t mean jack.

  • I wasn’t aware that he claimed he was a progressive candidate or President… He is doing what he can while still making sure that he can get re-elected in 2012. I think/hope that once he gets re-elected then he will just do whatever he wants to get things passed that the right doesn’t like and the “moral” conservatives don’t like or agree with because he won’t have to worry about getting re-elected again. The first 4 years of a Presidency will never please everyone in the base because they have to remember that they have to get re-elected again.

  • dildenusa

    Wow, 29 comments already and I’ve barely finished breakfast. I guess that’s what happens when one lives in the home state of Pussel Pearce or what used to be called the Grand Canyon State. Now I think it’s called the Police State. Oh, did I make a typographical error, sorry Puss.

    President Obama is taking a page from the Lincoln playbook.
    “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

    What I like about Obama is that he is not trying to bluff anyone, he is putting all his cards on the table and calling the republicans and the firebaggers to win or fold. Neither can win but they refuse to fold. Why? Obviously Boehner has lost control of his caucus. The firebaggers think Obama should be playing the same game McConnell and Cantor are playing. That’s a losing game for everybody and absolutely will cause real physical and emotional suffering for millions of Americans.

  • As a general observation, I think when a president is pissing off those at both ends of the political spectrum, he’s probably doing something right.

    I do feel some disappointment in President Obama myself however. This isn’t so much his stance on any particular issue, though, as it is his administration’s utter lack of negotiating skill. Who thinks it’s a good idea, especially when bargaining with a crowd who has no sense of ethics or fair play and who will use any means to realize their ends, to reveal all of your real goals as an opening to a negotiation? That kind of shit would get me fired.

    Having said that, though, I think many on the far left fell for the media’s meme (mostly propagated by the likes of Faux News) that Obama is a flaming liberal who is looking to drag the country kicking and screaming to the far left extreme. That is, at best, a misrepresentation. I find that, on most issues, he’s tried to do pretty much what he said he’d do.

    On those issues where we’re disappointed that Obama didn’t do more for the progressive agenda, we need to remember that even though he had a Democratic majority from ’09-’11, his agenda was obstructed every step of the way by those who’s primary objective is (as Mitch McConnell has repeatedly made clear) Mr. Obama’s defeat in ’12 rather than doing anything remotely good for the country. Especially since losing the House in the ’10 election, Obama’s hands have been mostly tied on nearly every progressive agenda item he may want to promote.

    I just wish, given his charisma, he was half as effective at bringing his agenda to the American people in order to get it passed through a hostile Congress as Reagan or FDR was. I just wish he was half as hard a bargainer as Johnson was. I wish he employed people who were half as good at negotiation as Kennedy’s were. Even with the GOP obstructing as they are, there is still so much potential that, so far, is unrealized.

    I think the animosity shown in this forum towards the “Firebaggers” comes from a well-founded fear that they’ll either succeed in dividing the Democratic vote or convince enough liberals to stay home on election day that they’ll end up handing the Senate or the White House (or both!) back to the GOP. After all, I believe Al Gore may well have won the presidency pretty handily if not for Nader and I believe we’d still have a Democratic House majority if the navel-gazers on the left hadn’t stayed home in such numbers in November of ’10.

    Many far right evangelicals thought Reagan betrayed them on many of their pet social issues. Come the ’84 election, though, they stayed solidly behind him because they knew that a divided GOP vote might have resulted in a President Mondale. As progressives who care passionately about the good of our country, we’d do very well to remember that in 2012.

    • Scopedog

      “I just wish, given his charisma, he was half as effective at bringing his agenda to the American people in order to get it passed through a hostile Congress as Reagan or FDR was.”

      That, I’m afraid, is more due to news media landscape that is rather, how should I say…..f**ked-up. They are more interested in putting politics as a “he said/she said” argument.

      Also, the President has been making speeches and statements for months now that have basically put forth his position on several issues, and there has been no change. It’s just that things fly down the memory hole rather rapidly nowadays, both on the MSM and here in cyberspace.

      After all, look how many people who comment on HP, FDL, Kos, Raw Story, and Smirking Chimp STILL continue to spew out the bullpucky that Obama “broke his promise” to close Gitmo? None of them ever list the truth about what really happened (it was Congress’s fault) and when someone does put it out there, there’s the caterwauling of “He should’ve signed an Executive Order!!” or some other bilious nonsense.

      (Well…he did sign one, but….)

      Obama can only say so much, because right now, the media landscape is not conducive to Democrats. It hasn’t been for years, not since the MSM decided to whip out the knee pads for Reagan and Bush 1. They pulled out the swords for Clinton, but put back the knee pads for Bush.

      The swords have come out again, this time for Obama.

  • holyreality

    Bob, sir, pal, with all due respect,

    I must advise you to please pad your legs better because your knee jerks with considerable force.

    Divorced from reality? Personally I LIKE Obama, love his coolness, his masterful rope a dope winning by retreating style. His accomplishments are minimized, and he says what I want to hear.

    But his entire demeanor with regards to the GOP bloodthirsty savages is that he wants them to LIKE HIM. Even when he “scolds” them he does it in a most obsequious way. Contrast this with FDR’s I welcome their hatred quip.

    My disappointment can be minimized if he would just list the facts, and keep doing so. Voters are not stupid, at least not all of us are, but we are gullible, and when the man genuflects to the rabid dogs, we tend to believe the bullshit like tax cuts = revenue gains, and other superstitions that the “liberal” media spoonfeed us daily.

    That is the part of us divorced from reality.

    • MrDHalen

      With all due respect,

      1.) Based on recent history, the majority of American’s ARE “Divorced from reality!” Check your local TV guide for proof of that.

      2.) An “Angry” or “Overly Loud & Aggressive”, President Obama would be play right into the hands of the GOP and their partners, The National Media, as they would brand him the “Scary Angry Black Man” running our country.

      3.) Until Americans stop voting Republicans into control of our branches of government, they’re acting STUPID!!! Voters have to wake up and start keeping score on what is going on in their government, because that is the problem. People are not paying attention and we all suffer for it.

      • jjasonham

        Ding! Ding! Ding!

      • holyreality

        All I am saying is LIST THE FACTS.

        Simple, nonconfrontational, and certainly not loud or aggressive, apologies for the caps 😉

        Already he is Blackie McBlackman, they hate him.

        Why not welcome their hate, and use things like facts to bolster his story, instead of giving the rabid dogs his hand to bite?

        Over and over again, he tries to get them to lick his hand, and all they do is tear off his arm.

        • Obama governing for the entire country, not just to the desires of the left has been reduced to hand licking to you, huh?

          Here’s to hoping you’re never the guy in charge.

          • holyreality

            Surrendering before battle is hardly above hand licking.
            Governing for the entire country would be a nice change, but all he seems to do is help the wealthy.

            All I ask is that he list the facts, something he is beginning to do, but that pisses off the dogs he wants a lick from.

        • MrDHalen

          It’s disappointing to see people on the left point out how pathetic our national media has become and in the next sentence talk about how bad Obama and democrats are at getting their message out.

          The message gets out their all the time if you listen, but people act like they don’t want the truth yet. The national media is not on our side and are working to suppress progressive policy ideas. A lot of people seem to enjoy the republican’s simplistic talk soup and bumper stickers.

          The truth is boring and requires listing & thinking, and right now too many people would rather not be bothered with the hard truths and dealing with our problems.

        • Lexamich

          See, it’s very easy to say “welcome” to hate, but the reality is that not everyone hates this man. To tell the truth, the Cons in government despise him for the position he is in because they’re not in it themselves. It could be ANY Democrat in the WH and their “hate” would still be inert, irrational, and invalid. It is up to us, the American people, to take this all in the proper perspective. The current criticisms regarding the president’s demeanor are the exact same complaints given back when he was running for president. Yes, he’s seen as “non-confrontational” in this atmosphere because – and this is what the corporate media will never tell you – there is no need for there to be confrontations. It is in the Cons interests to appear pugnacious because they’ve coached their constituents to treat politics like an NFL game. Well, that and the fact that they’re half-deranged and bent on ruling by feigned theocratic order as opposed to actual controlled chaos sans the religious influence. Now the common idiot may see “controlled chaos” as an oxymoron and attempt to be a smart-ass about it. Meanwhile this country has a population of over 300 million. You tell me if there’s a valid excuse for people to be putting up with this nonsense without using that term. The rubes the Cons cop to wouldn’t last three seconds in their libertarian, free market, non-socialist utopia, especially none of these idiots feeding on the teet of the Con-servaknave talk radio cabal and the FOX propaganda outlet. Look at how they complain about the “liberal media” and its influence on discourse beyond FNC. These molly-coddled dimwits would be crying for one of Obama’s stature if they were really in the unfettered casino the cons want to turn this country into, whether he’s black, a democrat, or friends with both the late Osama and that tall motherfucker from “To Serve Man” Twilight Zone episode. They fool NO ONE with the histrionics about “the kids and their grandkids” or “America’s future,” the idiot wretches. They speak as much because they’ve never experienced a world without government, and as noted, they’ve all been trained to bark at the opposition, no matter how annoying, idiotic, and toothless their barks are. Next time your liberal ass runs into a Con-troll whining about “tax dollars,” hand them five boxes of doggie biscuits and tell them that you’ve paid them back with interest.

          Listening to the Cons, you can hear their tyrannical sentiments leaking into all their rhetoric. If it isn’t gays interfering with their marriages, which is cause for them to bar them from getting married, it’s illegal immigrants coming to America to serve as both cheap labor and easy scapegoats. Don’t have any illegal immigrants handy, well, that’s too bad, because Americans themselves expect a bit too much from their “job creators” like dignity, self-respect, and earned wages that even as they lead the fabled “job creators” to scoff, actually gives the common worker peace of mind. To listen to the more demented or just plain stupid Cons, you’d think we aught to supplant government with a wayward corporate infrastructure where companies bicker and fight over which can suppress and oppress us more with their many precious goods and services. Their “free market” gibberish is nothing more than the ignorant prattle of corporate suck-ups afraid to walk down a neighborhood street for fear they may actually witness the products of their delusional ideology. These are the type of folks that flinch out of fear when someone raises their hand to wave “Hello.” They live in their Con-servaknave bubbles within their podunk districts, never having to venture beyond the borders besides when they go up to Washington to sabotage government for corporate benefactors (oh, and when they’re cheating on their wives, taking cash under the table etc.)

          In dealing with people like the current string of Con-servaknaves, one must take a modified approach. We already know that the Cons are plenty ferocious in their politicking. We all know that they’ve clung to a demented point of view regarding how this country should be run, how it aught to function, and how we aught to respond to both phenomenons. We also know that, at least for the last thirty years, Democrats have been primarily viewed as spineless milksops that let the Cons run all over them. Clinton did not change this, as effective as he was on certain issues. To tell the truth, the fact that the idiots went after him so hard over the – you know – the “horndog with a battle axe of a wife thing” contributed to his image as a multitasker and effective leader. The Cons have been bent on prescribing the “Jimmy Carter” image to Obama because they still view Reagan rise through the same rose colored glasses they did back then. Yes, we know they’re deranged. The point is nothing Obama does is going to dissuade this point they’ve chosen to cling to anytime soon. What is unusual is how many so-called liberals are influenced by such rhetoric. Fair-weather liberals that fit the “Jimmy Carter” image more than anyone because they’re so quick to recite Con logic regarding the president. Now they’ll claim that the president is a Con incognito and that he NEVER intended to move the “progressive agenda” forward. These obtuse people never understand that they are simply falling into the rhetorical trap set by the same Cons that got Reagan, and two Bushs’ elected. Yes, go ahead and claim that Obama is cowing before Republicon might instead of attempting to appear reasonable, not just to voters, not just to his own constituents, not just to the duplicitous press, not just to Cons that “hate” his guts, but to himself because he has a set of values.

          See, the problem as I see it is that too many want to write Obama’s narrative like a bunch of wannabe screen writers. They want so badly to define who and what the man represents. They want Obama to govern as they see themselves governing. For the Cons, they’d rather not see him governing at all, which is exactly what we’d expect from a bunch of lazy legislators that would rather suck-up to moneyed interests for a living. For the Dems, they see him governing in a way that leaves them happy. Since they have no clue on what it actually takes to make any and everyone happy, they cling to that which has been promoted prior to their political engagement. If there was talk of “single payer,” they cling to it. If there was talk of “an end to both wars” they cling to it. When these articles are not immediately acted upon, their passions run deep, and their dissatisfaction leaves them feeling hopeless. Soon they’re believing that a decade-long commitment, although misguided, can be put to the side like clothing one has outgrown. They believe a health care system can be dictated upon high from a Democrat because those in opposition not only stole an election in their faces, but bullied them for a better part of a decade after the fact. These stances taken by the impressionable “firebaggers” and such are not as remarkable as they believe them to be. Again, they are the coos of children that have never had to truly negotiate with individuals bent on dismantling their way of not only thinking, but of living.

          So, it’s very easy to invite scorn when you’re a single, anonymous individual on the’Net. It’s much harder when you’re not only a Democrat, not only an African-American, not only the frist African-American elected to the office of president, but a decent, well-meaning man, to boot. If no one can see that Obama is actually a decent individual attempting to maneuver through unnecessarily rough waters, they’re either ego-tripping or they have blinders on that are so thick and heavy they cannot pick their heads up from the floor and would not know which way to walk if they could. The “not strong enough” jive worked BEFORE he was elected president. It only works in circles that were interested in viewing him as ineffective to begin with.

          You want to fall into the rhetorical trap the Cons set up that has you as a starry-eyed Obama fanatic voting for him because he gave good speeches for a black man, you go on ahead. For some of us, we actually understood the man that we were voting for. We understand the environment he walked into both as a candidate and as president. We know who and what the opposition is. We know we can all talk a good game, but can we EVER back it up?

          I already know what some of you are going to say, and it’s bullshit. If you were so hard, you wouldn’t be here tossing Obama under the goddamned bus so quickly, while attempting to play rhetorical games on those that invested in the man because they believed he was honest about wanting to help the American people. The way some of you cast him, you’d think he was some Snidely Whiplash attempting to hoodwink people. Then some of you cast him as a bonehead that doesn’t know what he’s doing when you have to admit that you stood in a long-ass line to vote for him. Then you say that he’s simply a coward that just wants Republicons to like him so badly that he’ll risk the wrath of his precious fans. Then he’s just another politician, just like Bush, Clinton, and all the other liars. Then he’s a dork that should get a primary challenge from a random, able-bodied Democrat pol that will suffer a resounding defeat. You all cannot make up your minds, and this much is obvious.

          I’ve written a whole bunch, but all one has to do to establish the confusion overtaking many so-called liberals across the ‘Net, is this: ask them who they’ll be voting for in next year’s presidential election. Brass tacks, that right there.

          Stop with the bullshit posturing, and be patient.

          That is all.

          • incredulous72

            That does it; I’m officially a Lexacon.

      • I’m so glad that somebody recognizes that Obama CANNOT be visibly angry without the entire conversation changing over to “scary, angry, black man”. If you want to see Obama “supporters” flee, let them perceive him as being the sterotypical black man. Theyll run from him faster than Jesse Owens winning the Olympics.

        • holyreality

          “And I want to say I appreciate Speaker Boehner’s good-faith efforts on that front… I think Speaker Boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big… My experience with John Boehner has been good. I think he’s a good man who wants to do right by the country.”
          So will Boehner lick his hand now?

          • Lexamich

            I’m still trying to determine what you believe the president’s statement signifies and how many meetings you’ve had with Boehner.

    • jjasonham

      Mind you, this is just what you “perceive” of his demeanor. To me, it seems like he is being himself and reacting the way he always has! He is not going to be FDR. It’s not his personality. Adding to that: It seems like most people are disappointed with the way Obama is acting, as opposed to what he is doing…

      • holyreality

        …or not doing as the case may be.

        He ran on the Afghan war being the right one, words I did not want to hear, but he did fulfill his campaign promise.

        But he is not going after Bush, Cheney, Woo, or any of the other torture legal memo crooks. He cannot close gitmo without funds from Congress, but he can do more than just leaving them all be.

        His president milquetoast, George McFly act is getting old. All Biff and his gang so is to keep taping kick me signs on his back, and attack him for being a socialist. He can order a probe on Clarence’s shenanigans, but the rabid dogs won’t like him if he does that.

        Make no mistake, I will vote for him, I don’t like everything he does or does not do, but a president Bachmann will appoint a just-us to the Supremes that make Clarence Thomas look like a sane moderate.

        Jerking knees does nothing to spell out this critical point to get support in 2012.

        • Lexamich

          “Make no mistake, I will vote for him, I don’t like everything he does or does not do, but a president Bachmann will appoint a just-us to the Supremes that make Clarence Thomas look like a sane moderate.”

          Nothing more needs to be said.

          Honesty is the best policy, so you’d best prepare yourself for four more years of so-called “milquetoast, George McFly act” when you vote for him again.

          And for the record, Biff was a blithering idiot that was destined to NEVER win a damned thing in the end, lest we forget the timeline established in all three movies. As many times as Biff called people “butthead,” he was the one that ended up with manure on his face. Biff is the asshole that has to cheat to get to where he is. George is the honest, unassuming broker that raised a decent kid. 😉

          You need a refresher on that film you’re referencing.

          Regarding Thomas, a real case needs to be built against him, not just innuendo raise over the Internet. For President Obama to even broach the subject would play right into the hands of the media dorks that were just as invested in watering-down, if not outright destroying any health care policy a Democrat introduced. There would be an “electronic lynching” the likes of which Thomas only imagined himself the victim. The fucking idiotic TEA Party morons found an extension to their astroturf bullshit based on the ACA. Both Ginni and Clarance would be on morning talk shows whining about how the president is bullying them because he’s a socialist tyrant. A probe without real explanation would be the last thing this country needs to be distracted by, as precarious as our situation is. Thomas was a sellout stooge before Obama got into office, and he’ll be one when Obama leaves office. The nonsense will eventually catch up to him because it is apparent that both he and his dimwit wife are not as careful as they aught to be. Someone else needs to bring this up, but not Obama.

          See, I thought all you Obama critics were critical thinkers.

          Humph!

        • jjasonham

          When are you going to realize that you are asking him to have a personality he doesn’t have and that there are critical issues that have to be prioritized? I get it. You’re on this site, so you consider yourself well informed. Because you see each issue separately, and not in the serious, “I’m the one who actually has to do this, and well” perspective, you are the one removed from reality. Seriously.

  • Brutlyhonest

    Never, ever forget that President Obama was also blocked by a congress controlled by democrats for the first two years.

    • holyreality

      Lily livered cowards afraid of a filibuster “blocked” Obama. The GOP will fight for, and seize victory. Feckless Dems OTOH might accept it if it falls on their laps.

      H/T Bartcop, you’re the best mate.

  • Robert Burns

    One of the really crazy things is that many on the left are pissed that he has not instituted policies he never advocated. The war in Afghanistan is a perfect example. He said he would end the war in Iraq and increase troops in Afghanistan, yet many on the left are pissed he didn’t pull troops immediately out.

    Were they not listening? It seems like they just projected what they wanted out of a liberal leader onto a charismatic candidate and yet are now pissed he did not live up to their fantasy.

    UPDATE: I should also add that if we belive 538’s analysis, the R’s are in power because the libs never showed up to vote.

    • Lexamich

      It has been my theory all along that many were either beguiled by both the “Democratic majority” hype and the “first black president” jive or they, in fact, never really cared whether or not the man held actual policy positions, as they were more fueled by the words of bloggers, activists, and spin doctors, some of whom themselves are placating the coporate media structure to the best of their abilities. See, when you’ve studied rhetoric, you know when someone is being a two-face. Hamsandwich of the firedoglake is a prime example of this, lest we forget she praised Grover Norquist like they were BFFs on C-Span when confronted with her supposed liberal bias by the host and a couple of callers.

      The so called “firebaggers” remind me of children that get caught with their hands in the cookie jar and feel the need to negotiate their punishment. This leads to nonsense like them informing you that it was never established exactly which of their two hands was not supposed to nab cookies, so they cannot possibly be as guilty as you say they are. This allows them to both deny their duplicity and acknowledge their reliance on it. They play the roles of knowledgeable wonks very well on forums such as this, but they really don’t know what it takes to negotiate terms of an agreement. Most times they reveal that they’ve been in an echo chamber for most of their political life, and would be overwhelmed by the responsibility it takes to maintain a public position in a tumultuous political debate.

      Actually, I’ve had conversations with a few on this very blog that read like those adolescent responses. The peaceniks can’t seem to make up their minds as to whether “wars” are ever necessary when confronted with the reality behind the Libya. Oh, or when they toss up Billary and you confront them with the reality that her proposed health care positions resembled Obama’s current positions. They forget that she actually lost a contest, and was not going to be crowned president for simply being a former First Lady. Democratic primary challenges are mentioned, then reconsidered, then considered again for the simple fact that it allows them to complain about yet another thing the president does that irks them: beat their proposed candidate not only in name recognition, but EXPERIENCE, to boot.

      It is tedious reading all the incessant grousing about how ineffective Obama is as president. I do know that part of the nonsense comes from Republicon trolls infiltrating liberal blogs and sowing seeds of discontent. They depend on the more impressionable, indecisive Libs to jump on the bandwagon to follow trends. Half of these folks cannot sustain a political discussion without revealing their Con-servative origins. Another sect are disaffected Democrats attempting to be the activists they admire. Their intentions may appear honest, and their passion genuine, but it is all a severe case of ego-boosting. It is all rabble-rousing at its worse, especially when they call for primary challenges while claiming a eager Republicon would be better than a beleaguered Democrat. These people are simply feeling sorry for themselves, projecting their personality traits to the president, and hollering at him like they would themselves if they had the nerve. Then there are those precious trend-followers that latch onto any bit of counter-culture blarney to appear rebellious. Not much needs to be said about them besides the fact that they never understand how NOT rebellious they are agreeing with each other in a forum where there is a common consensus built upon a headline from a well-groomed blogger. It bars them from actually having to come up with their own predilections. It’s much easier to co-opt and go along with the crowd, because everyone knows that crowds leads to riots, and riots are uber rebellious. Perhaps these dummies are still proud of themselves for logging onto the Internet and chit-chatting with people across the country and abroad like scatterbrained hipsters displaced from the year 2000. I bet you they think The Matrix is still way cool, too.

      I’m not fooled by all this complaining over one thing or another. The reality is this:

      1) the Cons have nothing to offer but utter destruction because it is in the interests of their benefactors to make us all dependents

      2) the Democrats are, perhaps, tolerating the undead political party on the other side in order to appear reasonable and responsible, yet are always seen as simply being “weak”

      3) the president’s faith in the intelligence of the American people is forever being tested by our observing an ongoing drama supplied to us all by the corporate media that has no interest in keeping us abreast of current events that do not contribute to its profit-making.

      • Scopedog

        Nice job–this is the best comment I’ve read today.

        You summed things up better than I could have done.

      • jjasonham

        This is awesome. I always think the same thing about these people feeling like they’re the only ones that can recognize truth. The internet 2000 reference hit the nail on the head. Is it me or are most firebaggers Gen X? I honestly think it is a generational phenomenon. I say that in all seriousness, and I study generational politics.

        • incredulous72

          Nope, not a GenX issue, ’cause that’s my generation.

          To be perfectly honest, I believe this is a have and have not issue. If you are in the “Haves” then what is at stake is not as important as standing your ideological ground. “Have Nots” have more immediate concerns.

          Just my 3 cents.

          • jjasonham

            I don’t mean to say that all of Gen X is full of firebaggers. Just that the generation seems to contain most of them. I’ve read tons of material on characteristics of each of the major generations of the current electorate, and Gen X has many contrarian and independent characteristics. Boomers and Millennials are much more collectivistic. (Viewed by Gen X as groupthink.) Grunge and all it represents manifested out of this generation. Just an interesting observation.

  • Robert Scalzi

    Reading this makes me want to shoot people, it’s a damn good thing I don’t own and will never own a gun because there are a shitload of worthy targets on the so-called uber left and the batshitcrazy right.

    • Scopedog

      Well, I’m more along the lines of, “I’m not mad…I just want to beat the s**t out of them.”

      Just when you think people cannot be “that stupid”, someone comes along to prove you wrong.

    • WiscoInferno

      “Makes me want to shoot people.” It sucks to read that statement written within a left wing blog and, unfortunately, it sort of sounds like something the batshitcrazy right would say. 🙁

      • Robert Scalzi

        Really ?? I ‘m sick and fucking tired of being kicked in th eteeth by these asshats, and you obviously didn’t finish reading my post so Fuck You

        • WiscoInferno

          I’m pleased to meet you as well. My what a nice community you have here. I’m not down with the civility argument when it comes to left vs. right. But civility amongst the members of the left would seem to be a worthwhile endeavor. And I realize that the extreme left is not always civil, but, like I said, it would be a worthwhile endeavor.

          • Welcome to the community. Getting off your high horse would be a step in the right direction.

          • WiscoInferno

            Sorry if it seems that way. It’s hard to not take the high horse approach, when the replies are of the “fuck you” variety.

          • The comment section of the blog seems divorced from the tone of the content of the blog. You guys make Bob look terrible.

          • I’ve been coming to Bob’s blog for several years now on an almost daily basis. I feel I’ve earned the right to say something about the tone here. I hate to say it but when the posts get to the F-Y stage, it doesn’t do anyone any good and it does make Bob look bad. I think we can argue intelligently within the left without getting ugly like this. I have no problem with telling right-wing trolls to F-off but “in house”? I’m getting uncomfortable with the lack of reasonable discourse here.

          • Bob has the same POV that we do. A pity you don’t understand that.

          • WiscoInferno

            If Mr. Cesca truly thinks that abusive rhetoric (and, because of this, it comes off as somewhat unintelligent) directed at fellow members of the left (who may or may not be a bit further to the left than the majority), then maybe I should reconsider posting here. That said, I’d rather the man spoke for himself.

  • WiscoInferno

    The progressive left is not the enemy. They’re very disappointed. Sometimes the rhetoric is a bit too extreme, but they essentially want the same things you do. For some on this blog to fucking hate them on the same level as you hate the right is ridiculous. Why do the Republicans often get what they want? Cuz they’re in lockstep. Why does the left often fail? Cuz they tear each other apart from all sides of the spectrum that is the left. We need to focus our hate and combine the streams to fight Gozer (i.e. the right).

    • Robert Scalzi

      They are too teh Fucking enemy, just as much a s the batshitcrazy right is…. Fuck You

      • WiscoInferno

        Enough with the Fuck You. It’s not warranted.

        • Robert Scalzi

          Maybe your right about the Fuck You…It’s been a bad morning , so SCREW YOU

    • You’re wrong. The batshit left is also the enemy, and just as capable of aiding and abetting the right in destroying this country.
      Adding………look what they did with the midterms.

      • Don’t forget 2000 the whining ass left either voted for Ralph Nader or stayed home.

        • Exactly! And then there was 2004 where they kept their stupid pure asses home cause they didn’t like John Kerry.

  • trgahan

    So the solution for a President who is “not progressive enough,” is to abandon support of him and give 2012 to someone in the current Republican clown car (A second progressive candidate would just split the vote like 2000.)? I know! How about we make all democratic representatives sign a “purity pledge” that binds them to a set on non-negotiable talking points? No one has done that before and it will surely be followed to the letter!
    BTW, why did we spend the Bush presidency arguing that presidents had no affect on the economy when things were surging and now that the economy has tanked, fixing it is laid entirely at President Obama’s feet? How utterly gutless are we?

    • i_a_c

      How about we make all democratic representatives sign a “purity pledge” that binds them to a set on non-negotiable talking points? No one has done that before and it will surely be followed to the letter!

      Right on. Hopefully FDL will get right to work on its purity tests.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, and I’ll keep saying it through November 2012 if this continues, which I have no reason to believe it won’t.

    Barack Obama will lose the 2012 presidential election for the worst of all possible reasons: The Right™ hates him for being an extreme radical far-left-wing ideologue, and the Left™ hates him for not being an extreme radical far-left-wing ideologue.

    The whole country is divorced from reality. It takes all the energy I have to remain interested in any of this, because paying attention to the facts and trying to navigate one’s way through the Right-Wing Land of Make Believe, and the Left-Wing Land of Trees-But-No-Forest, is becoming more and more pointless.

    • incredulous72

      Don’t be discouraged Graf. Those on the far left that oppose the President are a minority group that make “VERY LOUD NOISES”, but they are not the majority of Dems, and even they know that if they don’t support President Obama in the upcoming election, there will be even more hell to pay for this country.

      I’m personally sick and tired of those on the left that accuse President Obama of being just like Bush, and then when they’re asked how then should the President proceed with his agenda, they want him to be JUST LIKE BUSH.

      Make . . . up . . . your . . . MIND.

  • Michel Parisien

    Sorry, I’m not a long-time reader, I’ve landed on this site very recently because of the interesting figures you put up, but why do you not agree with this extract? Do you think Obama has delivered for the left? In fact, from the way you’re reacting with disgust, it makes me think that you think that, if anything, Obama has been too strong for the left. But this is a left-leaning blog, right? I’d love to have a dialogue with you, because I don’t understand those who are still defending Obama rather strongly, just as much as you surely think I am out of my mind for giving up on Obama.

    • laddieluv

      Gee. How much more do you think President Obama would have accomplished re: passing/doing more “progressive” issues/policies, if he wasn’t dealing with a huge rethug/bagger “obstruct this (black) President at all costs” right wing contingency.

      Did you forget? The left cooperated with Bush. Even voted for his illegal/lie-based war(s).

      The left wants to govern. Wants to move the country forward. Wants to compromise. Wants to have a dialogue. Has the best interests of the country AND the middle class at heart.

      All this goper/bagger/wing nut House and most other rethugs want to do is get the “black guy” out of the White House. Don’t give a “crap” about the middle class. Want a plutocracy/theocracy. Not a democracy.

      And the right is willing to literally TANK our economy to do that.

      Will make the Great Depression look like a TeaParty.

      The right is completely insane.

      Blech.

    • Michel, Pres. Obama has done a TON of things for the left (see these links):

      http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
      http://planetpov.com/2011/02/13/a-short-list-of-pres-obamas-accomplishments/
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/19/805925/-90-Accomplishments-of-Pres-Obama-Which-The-Media-Fails-to-Report

      *there are lots of good lists out there BTW

      If you read those lists and feel that he STILL hasn’t done enough to satisfy someone like yourself, then you need only look to the GOP’s willingness to sacrifice everything to stop Pres. O as to why. So getting mad at Pres. O and giving up on him is completely illogical because it will ensure that a GOP candidate will win in 2012 and the left will not get anything they want and in fact, much of the progress that he has made will be reversed.

      We understand that you might be disappointed about certain issues, I certainly am. But that doesn’t mean I am going to withdraw my support, particularly in the face of such extremism on the right. As a group, we tend to think that the very survival of our nation depends on beating the GOP and feel that Pres. O is critical to this strategy (not to mention the best man for the job).

      • WiscoInferno

        That’s the key. You can be disappointed, but don’t withdraw support. A Republican win in 2012 would be a disaster. Think about shit like SCOTUS nominations, etc. But yeah, there are plenty of things to be disappointed about and there’s nothing wrong with that. The POTUS needs to hear from the progressives. They’re a very important part of his base.

        • He does not need to hear from the batshit crazy opportunistic left at this time in this country’s history. Not at all.

      • NoBigGovDuh

        He has failed to make substantial changes that help the homeless and has prosecuted whistle blowers.

        I feel as if the Democratic party is throwing Whistle Blowers, like Bradley Manning, under the Bus for political gain like Clinton did to LGBT people in the 90s.

        The changes he made are based on political ability. And I feel will only help a small subset of people.

        There are still millions of people being foreclosed on people are homeless but now banned from coming into population centers which only hides their existence.

        Obama’s Original Sin:

        The president’s failure to demand a reckoning from the moneyed interests who brought the economy down has cursed his first term, and could prevent a second.

        http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/obama-economy/presidents-failure/

        Further the person who started this rumor worked for Reason mag which is linked to Koch!

        Either accept that a large number of people on the Left are seriously pissed off and address it constructively or loose.

        FURTHER:

        The following two article show how Obama is alienating people in the Tech industry which are more Democratic normally.

        White House: we “win the future” by making ISPs into copyright cops:
        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/white-house-we-win-the-future-by-making-isps-into-copyright-enforcers.ars

        ISP flip-flops: why do they now support “six strikes” plan?:
        http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2011/07/why-did-telcos-flip-flop-and-support-six-strikes-plan.ars

        • What “whistle” did Bradley Manning blow? Aside from the helicopter gun camera video, the “Collateral Murder” incident was already understood and reported. Every batch of cables comes with the same verbiage about how “this doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.” Tell the truth: the “whistle” Manning blew was that he made the activist opponents of Bush’s wars feel vindicated. That’s it. No new information — at all. Some whistle!

      • He gave us a piece of cake while he was cutting off our legs. Republicans would keep the cake, so we are supposed to be grateful.

        • incredulous72

          Not only does that analogy make no sense whatsoever, but it is backwards.

          The republicans are trying to cut off your legs. Obama is trying to stop that from happening.

        • Aside from the fact that your metaphor is a little extreme, my answer is yes. Yes because no one else will get elected in 2012 and therefore no one else will be able to stop the Republicans from taking all the cake. So, if you’re choice is between some cake and no cake and the cake could make a significant difference in the history of your country who do you choose? Firebaggers will say, then I choose the principled stand of no one or Kucinich….and then everyone gets f*cked because you decided to be principled. I think that’s all very noble and incredibly f*cking selfish of Firebaggers personally.

      • Michel Parisien

        I received many replies, but yours seemed to offer an opportunity for bridge building between our camps, so I’ll reply you. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

        I have reviewed those links, and I did know most of the items listed in them, though there were some surprises. The biggest ones, the ones most likely to impress me, I already knew though.

        After seeing these replies, I see that perhaps people read that firedoglake post differently than me. For one thing, many of you vilify them, none worse than Bob Cesca (firebaggers? I’m sure it is something he coined a while ago, I just came around to this blog very recently).

        Anyway, I saw this to be written more for effect. I guarantee you, nearly every reader of firedoglake will pinch their noses if they have to, to vote for him, and perhaps even campaign for him. The people from that site will have a more positive impact on getting people to vote Democrat than your average left-leaning American.

        Obviously, in the right environment, Obama would do a great job. But he was given a bad situation, and I think no one could argue based on a number of metrics that he has one of the most unified oppositions, which is playing, as Obama often puts it, just to score some political points.

        But, this is the position of those who are like me, which many of you seem to hate to such an extreme degree: you have the lesser of two evils, the good cop and the bad cop, and they’re both playing on the same team on a lot of things. I know nothing of motivations, though I do know a number of Democrats are definitely in the pockets of big money (not to say Republicans aren’t worse, assume from now on that I obviously always think Republicans are waaay worse). But, in effect, when you look at the process, there is no denying that Democrats get 5% of what they want, Republicans 95%, and it wouldn’t be that bad without Democrats caving all the time.

        Note I base my opinion mainly on everything that happened up until the 2010 elections. That’s where we saw what happens when this crop of Democrats had more power than they’ll probably have for a while. And it wasn’t impressive.

        I disagree with people who think Democrats are doing the best they can. I just don’t see it. And I think the visceral reaction I see from people on this blog is basically that you’re mad that there are people who are hurting the best of two evils. “Stupid left-wing extremist! You’re compromising your own position, fool!”

        I am cautious to not rock the boat too much, because I agree with you. But I 100% support those who are rocking the boat, because it is necessary that when you have only two choices (poor USA for valuing third parties so poorly), and they both hurt you, you’ve gotta do something!

        So I think where the disconnect is between our sides (even though we’re technically on the same side) is that people on this blog still trust in the Democratic party, and people like me and firedoglake believe that the Democratic party is leaving liberalism, being quite strongly affected by corporatism (again, Republicans are worse, but that’s not a reason to forgive Democrats who are playing against the American people).

        I am happy to continue the conversation, but I saw my reply was getting long, so I’ll stop here for now. However, to those who are so hateful in the direction of those who are disappointed with Democrats, you’re not helping things. We need to communicate, learn from each other, and learn to work together, because either we stand together and prevail or get divided and conquered.

        • MrDHalen

          I’ll repeat someone’s comment that I believe is a fitting response “It appears that many Americans just want a king that is on their side.”

          Obama has said and I also believe “true change starts with us”. We as a nation voted for change and then went back to our lives expecting Obama to just pull change out of his ass. The nation has failed itself, by not voting for enough people who can write the legislation we want. Show me all the progressive bills Obama has vetoed or refuse to sign.

          We got a president that will sign progressive legislation into law; it’s not his fought if the other CO-EQUAL branch of government never sends him the bills to sign.

          Honestly, I think your way of seeing this is taking the easy route. I do not think you are truly factoring in all the variable that have created the environment we are in today.

    • i_a_c

      Because he’s managed to be (arguably) the most liberal president since LBJ in the face of a rabid, racist Republican opposition hell-bent on opposing everything if Obama is for it, entrenched corporate interests, the worst recession since the Great Depression, two unfunded wars and an exploding national debt.

    • You should just said I’m angry at Obama because he didn’t give me a flying pony that shit gold bricks and spit out 100 dollar bills. I don’t know what kind of dialogue you’re seeking Mr. Cesca represent the 86% of the people that call themselves liberals and Democrats who happens to support the current president. If you want to hear what the minority firebag “liberal” view go to firedog lake or “Democratic” Underground.

      President Obama can only sign bills into law and advocate for certain things it’s the power of congress it create bills and vote for them, now if you’re pissed off at nothing having single payer or a public option then you called your blue dog senator that was threatening to join a Republican filibuster. If you’re pissed off at the tax deal then you should told your Democratic Representative not to hold off tax discussions until after the elections or better yet you and your buddies should had kept the house Democratic so you wouldn’t see a deal with an extension of tax cuts for the richest 1%.
      The problem here we had too many self righteous liberals being selfish pricks claiming they’re were soooooooooooo disappointed as justification for handing over The House of Representatives over to a bunch of raving lunatics that are currently jacking up the progress that was made in the previous two years.

      Here’s the thing you’re not punishing Democrats if you don’t vote for them sure they would like to get re-elected but guess what they will always find jobs in the private sector that will double or triple the pay they used to get as an elected official. Another thing showing off you got purity cred over at Firedog Lake or Democratic Underground might feel good for a hot second then you’re going to realize you just handed the United States Senate over to the Republicans, you help add more tea bag Republicans in the house and sitting at the head of the grand ole ignorant ass table would be an President Michele Bachmann and we’re ALL going to suffer with what agenda their corporate overlords want.

  • Scopedog

    They’re nuts. Or they have a case of chronic NIA/HUA disorder. Or both.

    And they’re re-writing history too.

    You know what? Screw ’em.