Wow - Obama may actually be serious

by: ai002h

Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 13:12


(My reaction was similar to the one in this diary. - promoted by tremayne)

Just watched his weekly address, and the President has taken a decidedly more populist tone. When I first saw the budget outline I was completely shocked in how it was so different to Obama's approach to the stimulus. It was actually bold and shockingly consistent with his campaign promises and his rhetoric.

That got me to think that either a)Obama's intended idea was to use the budget as the vehicle for his agenda or b)that the Stimulus taught him its better to be less concerned with republicans and instead go fullsteam ahead. Whatever the reason, I'm happy for it. It's been more than 40 years since we saw 1600 Pennsylvania Ave as a threat to the status quo and special interest. Well that day may be here, and its a beautiful thing.

More below

ai002h :: Wow - Obama may actually be serious
Anyway, here are excerpts from his address and a link at the bottom:

I realize that passing this budget won't be easy.  Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington.  I know that the insurance industry won't like the idea that they'll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families.  I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable.  I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries.  

But here's the best part

In other words, I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak.  My message to them is this:

So am I.

And just in case we forgot what last year was about

The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don't.  I work for the American people.  I didn't come here to do the same thing we've been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November. That is the change this budget starts to make, and that is the change I'll be fighting for in the weeks ahead - change that will grow our economy, expand our middle-class, and keep the American Dream alive for all those men and women who have believed in this journey from the day it began.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Now it's up to us to support the President and make sure Congress, particularly democrats serving the big industries, don't bow to the special interest. We're already hearing guys like Kent Conrad criticizing the parts of the bill taxing Big Farma and the wealthy in general. So those of you waving your fingers criticizing Obama, now is the time to get off the sidelines and do something about it.  


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
surprisingly strong stuff (4.00 / 13)
It's smart to couch his defense of his policies in terms of his electoral mandate. After McCain made the campaign all about a referendum on "socialism," and then soundly lost, that argument can't credibly be used against Obama's plans now. (Not that that'll stop people from trying, of course...)

Its going to get ugly (0.00 / 0)
I mean, really really nasty.  I'm not saying Obama can't handle it. But Limbaugh's rant today is just the beginning.


Vicious (4.00 / 1)
I caught Limbaugh's speech by chance and watched with disgust and pity. Janeane Garofalo had it right when she mocked his self-loathing form of narcissism the other day.

On another note. If Obama actually governs more like a progressive will Open Left take 100% of the credit?


[ Parent ]
100%? (0.00 / 0)
we can do better than that!

[ Parent ]
how low can they rush (4.00 / 1)
when you have already called somebody subhuman and called for assassination and violent insurrection, can you go very much lower? Limbaugh is already off the chart, he's played his hand, no more headline making surprises from that mouthpiece. Here on out its just more of the same from 'ol Rushie.

[ Parent ]
Hold on... (0.00 / 0)
Rush is a douche but where did he actually call for assassination, which is a felony offense.  If he has, please lets forward to the Secret Service as well as the FCC. Lets not stoop to his level and make shit up.

[ Parent ]
oh heavens no (4.00 / 1)
big Rush ain't gonna risk a secret service smackdown .. not yet anyway .. always careful to get those disclaimers in there first before the hatred starts to spew.

RL: At this point, at this point Gretchen, I don't care about the why. They're not going to leave. They're trying to control it. At this point, the only thing is they must be stopped!

Caller: I agree...

RL: Within the confines of our Constitution, and the political arena of ideas, they must be stopped. I don't care why they see this country the way they see it. I don't care why a murderer does it. I don't care why a rapist does it. I don't care why this Muslim guy offed his wife's head.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/...


[ Parent ]
I'm behind him a hundred percent. (4.00 / 15)
In a couple of weeks I plan on going to see my senior senator, Blanche Lincoln, begin her reelection campaign in Little Rock.  I plan on showing up and doing my best to hold her accountable.  Hopefully everyone else will be on the ball too.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/


The simplest explanation... (4.00 / 1)
... for this:

When I first saw the budget outline I was completely shocked in how it was so different to Obama's approach to the stimulus.

...is the people who wrote the documents. Obama has staffed the executive branch with experienced professionals from the Clinton administrations. The budget reflects the work of a large group of mainstream Democratic bureaucrats. (I'm by no means an insider, but friends who are Clinton administration veterans are firm that they will not allow this administration to fail).

On the other hand, the stimulus package was written by an entirely different crowd of House members and Treasury guys like Geithner, who is a political independent.


The distinction between the two is rather suspect. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
No it hasn't been more than 40 years (4.00 / 4)
It's been more than 40 years since we saw 1600 Pennsylvania Ave as a threat to the status quo and special interest. Well that day may be here, and its a beautiful thing.

Were you around and in the working world during the 90's.  Have you forgotten how many jobs were created? Do you remember how much better the quality of life was for the middle class then?

It doesn't help anyone to diss the Clinton years.  


Kennedy/LBJ (4.00 / 10)
That's all true. But the 60s was the last time we were really on the offensive and able to get huge things accomplished. I'm talking Civil Rights/Great Society.

[ Parent ]
You don't think... (0.00 / 0)
... this is a offensive to get huge things done, do you? If so, what?

An aside, one of my pet theories is that the DP has yet to come to terms with its proper role as caretaker of great liberal policies and institutions. It's hard to top enfranchisement of women and African Americans.  


[ Parent ]
I sure do (4.00 / 1)
I was comparing the Clinton years to the 60s. After all, he never won a majority and was dealing with a Republican congress for 6 years.  

[ Parent ]
Amen Brother (4.00 / 3)
Gimme some of that ol' time religon. Except its been so long, I don't want no regular Sunday service...I want a full-on Revival!

[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
People clearly are quick to forget that, for example, the poverty rate for African Americans was lower than the previous peak during the Great Society.

If the '90s attempt at UHC, the progressive taxation of the '93 budget, and working class income growth weren't challenges to "the status quo and special interest," I don't know what is.

This is not to downplay the new budget proposal. As I implied above, it was written by many of the same people who were associated with our other modern successes.


[ Parent ]
NAFTA and PNTR (4.00 / 8)
weren't the greatest threats to the status quo in my opinion. Unless by status quo you mean unionized and industrial jobs that supported an American middle class.

[ Parent ]
It doesn't help anyone (4.00 / 6)
to gloss over the harsh realities of things that happened in the Clinton years that were not to America's benefit.

[ Parent ]
True (0.00 / 0)
Still not sure how or why the Monica Lewinsky thing was permitted to happen in the wake of Clinton's resounding reelection in 1996, but it was emblematic, to me anyway, of how the Clinton administration wasted its potential to advance the Democratic agenda during a period of unprecedented economic growth.

[ Parent ]
It was emblematic to me (4.00 / 1)
of a Republican Party working hand-in-glove with the  media to take down a popular Democratic president.

If you think the whole thing was Clinton's fault, you're in for a surprise when they pull the same shit on Obama. Because they will. It may not take the exact same form but they will do it again.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
The Clintons never took on the status quo (4.00 / 7)
they only enhanced it.

Of course, they would say that they had no other choice, given that there was no progressive machine in those days.

Whatever the case, the '90s were a complete waste....the author is correct, no one (from the left side of the equation) has taken on the status quo since LBJ in the mid-60s.


[ Parent ]
Cmon..lets be honest with ourselves (4.00 / 9)
I, love Bill Clinton, unlike some progressives. He had progressive tax policies and was a great steward of the economy. But a threat to the establishment?? Gotta disagree there. Clinton was the ultimate dealmaker when it came to republicans, partly due to their numbers, but partly because he was tentative when it came to using political capital on an ambitious legislative agenda, especially after the the Hillarycare debacle. While he was a good president, he was hardly causing problems, taking names and trying to lay a broad agenda.  

[ Parent ]
Clinton didn't change the status quo (4.00 / 5)
he gamed it for positive results most of the time, he didn't outright fight it.

[ Parent ]
Gamed and wasted it. (0.00 / 0)
Between Monica and supporting Reagan's stupid policies, he did little to move this country forward.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
In his defense (0.00 / 0)
there never really was any national desire to change the status quo...not like there is now.  

[ Parent ]
Smart tactics (4.00 / 9)
The difference between the budget and the stimulus is that the budget only needs 51 votes in the Senate. He doesn't need Snowe or Specter or Collins, or even Nelson or Bayh or Lieberman.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

It was the stimulus fight... (4.00 / 9)
...sine it was clear that republicans would go apoplectic no matter what he did, so might as well go for broke.  The republicans did this to themselves... we are all better for it!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


Obama's looking like the real deal after all (4.00 / 1)

 I think the question now is, will the blue dogs be patriotic enough to support him?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

it doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)
I could be wrong but unlike everything else, the Republicans can't filibuster this, so all he needs is 50 votes and I'm sure he's got at least 50 with Biden for this.

The House he just needs 218 and I'm sure he has at least that.

That's probably why the budget looks so progressive, because he has the votes for it.  


[ Parent ]
Will Kirsten Gillibrand vote for Obama's budget? (0.00 / 0)
She voted against his Stimulus bill

[ Parent ]
No she didn't (4.00 / 1)
She was in the Senate by then and voted for the bill...she even promoted it around New York.

The bank bailout she voted against last October.  


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the correction - sorry to misinform (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
You were doing great (0.00 / 0)
until that last paragraph

Obama: A New Presidential Persona? (4.00 / 8)
I agree with you that the bold progressive initiatives that Obama presented in his budget and the feisty tone of his speech are quite a break with the past. I was quite surprised and enthused, for the first time.

I also agree with other insights presented above that the treatment Obama received from the GOP during the stimulus fight might have been a wake-up call to him that there is scant possibility of a meeting of the minds across the political aisle.

If so, it appears that Obama might be dispensing with the formalities of seeking a rapprochement and instead preparing for the protracted, pitched battles that lie ahead.

His confident yet pugnacious tone is a good omen. His actual skills in combat with the entrenched retrograde elements in Congress belonging to both political parties remain to be proved.

I'm betting he can win, if he stays true to the promises and commitments he made in his speech and on the campaign trail and mounts an effective political offensive that mobilizes grassroots pressure to force recalcitrant Congressional representatives to support his initiatives.  


Hmm (4.00 / 1)
It's looking like Obama should look to making a speech that cements his change from Bush under a new umbrella term akin to the New Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society.

Suggestions?


Change We Can Believe In / The Change We Need? :p (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Obama can talk all he wants. (0.00 / 1)
Until we see some results, I see little reason to trust him.

Please (4.00 / 10)
I think his budget at the very least shows that he INTENDS to deliver on change. It's beyond talk now, he's actually presented a document with his broad agenda. If you want the results you have to be involved in making it happen instead of standing on the sidelines.  

[ Parent ]
hah. he has released his budget... (4.00 / 5)
your "show me the money" statement is the inverse of the "obama has a super-secret plan" arguments.... he already has acted, the gauntlet is thrown down; now we just need to push congress to pass the bill.  

[ Parent ]
A Fist-Bump for the President (4.00 / 5)
I am excited by this move. I think, yes, they learned some things from the stimulus debacle.

But more than that, I think it is just a sincere expression of where Obama and many of his people want to go.  

In regards to the financial crisis itself, I don't think he is going near far enough, but even so he has made moves in recent weeks to dilute control over policy by any one member of Cabinet (and remember, his Cabinet is mostly DLC & friends) and assert his own authority. Wholesale delegation, this is not. And to the extent that he errs on acting too little, too late on nationalization & cramdowns...he's probably in synce with mainstream America, so they won't blame him for the delay...it will be a journey they take together.

In regards to the budget, and his virtual SOTU address, he totally threw the doors open-wide open-on education funding, healthcare, and energy policy. He came down on the left side of the Democratic mainstream, then loosened up fiscal policy, and let everyone know he was loaded for bear. This is actually a remarkable step, because in times when economic duress and a resurgent progressive infrastructure are exerting considerable pressure, his move 1) greatly strengthens the left wing of the Democratic party, but 2) at the same time, somehow paints himself as a quasi-centrist who conservatives can run to for help.

The ball is in the Democratic Congress' court. Any Democrat who has ever wanted to do anything substantial about education, healthcare, or energy has now been handed the opportunity to accomplish things that are only possible once in a generation or so.

What we do with that opportunity is up to us. I hope Dems in Congress still know how to dream BIG.


Dream BIG, indeed… (4.00 / 2)
...that's exactly what I was saying to friends (with my fingers crossed) when Obama started rolling out all the Clintonites during the transition. Suppose he's saying things to them like, 'OK, so your first pass at this was spent capitulating to a hostile Congress or whatever, but what is it you really wanna get done?"

And thankfully, now that the "smart" people in finance who've been fleecing us since the '80s have been discredited, the key is this:

And to the extent that he errs on acting too little, too late on nationalization & cramdowns...he's probably in sync with mainstream America, so they won't blame him for the delay...it will be a journey they take together.

No one's saying it'll be a cakewalk, but an opening has been created, and Obama just took the snap. Go LONG!

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams


[ Parent ]
Great Find (4.00 / 2)
"So Am I"   t shirt (perfect in blue)

Taken from this!

I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak.  My message to them is this:

So am I.

http://www.cafepress.com/Start...

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


Two questions (0.00 / 0)
1. Is it true that Obama doesn't need 60 votes in the senate to pass the budget?

2. How close does the 634 billion included for health care reform put us to universal health care?

Thanks


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search