A somewhat whimsical post on what other lib/progs had to say about Obama’s Nobel brought a couple of responses, one from Frank F explaining the process of nomination and why it all make so much sense even though Obama hasn’t actually, you know, done anything yet.
I think Nobel was looking at the Obama Administration’s non-proliferation goals, which it seems the media is incapable of doing. The actions are both ambitious, and on their way to succeeding. The success of these policy goals will have a dramatic effect on global security. Given that Nobel emphasized his work on the nuclear front, its not hard to understand why they made the decision.
jean followed up by taking me and all other critical lefties to the proverbial woodshed.
Thanks, FrankF, the best rebuttal I have seen to the naysayers, especially the progressive/liberal whining. THAT has been disheartening. Just shows how much the left has their heads up their (you know where), and I count myself a progressive.
I don’t know. Does counting yourself count?
IAC, after giving her criticism (and FrankF’s) of my criticism (well, my agreement with the criticism of others, at any rate) a good deal of critical thought, I have reached the critical conclusion that jean is right. It’s not Obama’s fault that he hasn’t kept his promises, hasn’t done what we hoped he would do. It’s our fault.
Really, how dare we criticize Obama? He’s only been president for 10 months and that’s obviously not time enough to accomplish anything except the making of grand promises. I mean, what do we want? He’s good looking, smart, speaks well, comes across on the Almighty Teevee like a star, and he isn’t George Bush.
OK, so he backs Bush’s economic policies, is keeping both wars going while threatening a third (effectively out-Bushing Bush), is keeping Gitmo open, supports FISA and extending the PATRIOT Act, is fighting in court for Bush’s state secrets policy, etc etc etc. HE ISN’T BUSH. I don’t know why I didn’t think that not-being-Bush was enough. That wasn’t fair of me. It has onlybeen 10 months. What can we realistically expect him to do in less than 25% of his (first) term? He just hasn’t had time.
Well, OK, so he has had time to make sure that the banksters got their $3Tril in bail-out money, billions of which they promptly paid themselves in bonuses, thus ensuring that some stimulus money would trickle down to the economy in the form of more jobs for yacht cleaners and up-scale shoe designers.
Oh, and he had time to send his DOJ lawyers to plead for retention of Bush’s state secrets policy. He had time to do that, thank goodness. Even though, now that I think on it, it might have taken less time if he hadn’t. You know, a simple withdrawl takes a lot less time than a long defense of the indefensible.
But that brings up another issue it seems I and the other critics just don’t seem to sufficiently grasp. It should be clear (lord knows Harry Reid has said it often enough) that Obama can’t do anything that would upset Limbo or Beck because they’d in turn sic their hundreds of loyal followers on his ass. Not that they don’t do that anyway, but why invite it by pissing them off? They’re loud and Almighty Teevee likes them and the Villagers thinks they’re, you know, Heartland, so we just can’t afford to take the chamnce that they represent more people than they seem to represent, which is a handful in militia hideouts in Montana. What if there’s more?
You see, Harry explains over and over, we just don’t have enough votes to avoid the threat of a filibuster even though we have enough votes for cloture except for the 22 Blue Dogs in the 435 member House and the 13 in the 100 member Senate who always vote with the Republicans. Reid is only Majority Leader, it’s not like he can discipline them or anything. There just isn’t a thing he can do about it. We need to accept that. Carping isn’t going to help.
And then there are those of us spoil-sports who insist on pointing to the polls that say citizens are in favor of lib-prog approaches to our problems, that they’ve had enough of meanness, stinginess, selfishness, and corporate puppety masquerading as policy. For example, between 65 and 80% of the public is in favor of a public option in healthcare reform, and 55%+ favors single-payer. So what? Harry says, “That’s not enough.” He is convinced that the Democrats are going to be thrown out if they don’t do what the Republicans want them to do even though the Republicans don’t want them to do anything and will vote against it no matter what it is, and if the Dems do nothing will then attack them for doing nothing.
And who’s to say he’s wrong to be afraid? OK, the polls say so, but what do they know?
Finally, there’s the Greater Good of Bipartisan Support that President Obama wants in order to prove that there’s Republican support for his policies, which of course there isn’t and won’t be. That’s not important. What’s important is that there be the illusion of bipartisan support, which is why it’s important to disembowel healthcare reform in order to keep Olympia Snowe happy. She’s a Republican and even though she hasn’t promised to vote for the policy that’s been built around her objections, the fact that she hasn’t said she’ll vote against it means there might be “bipartisan support” from a Republican. Who could ask for anything more? Isn’t that worth the sacrifice of any number of the lioves that won’t be saved by corporate non-reform?
In short, it has become clear to me that Obama is the best president in the best of all possible worlds and that he just can’t possibly be expected to do any more than he’s done even when he could have and it would have been simpler and quicker and more popular than fighting for Bush policies. Obviously, us pro/lib whiners have our heads up our asses and simply don’t understand the pressures that the Not-Bush Obama is up against. We should be happy that Bush retired and was replaced by a handsome orator who can speak English and we should just stfu.
That’s just what I plan to do, jean. Gawd bless you for opening my eyes.