Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Still Sensible** · 08-08-2011, 04:30 PM

and dig into Standard & Poors, which obviously has become the financial tool of the right wing. These assholes are the same people that were all onboard with Lehman Brothers and just fine with the bullshit credit default instruments that damn near sunk the economy three years ago.

I think the right wing and their greedy, unethical financial masters now smell blood in the water and perceive a viable chance, after more than 70 years, to really roll back the New Deal. What we have seen so far, from Reaganomics starting in the 80s, to welfare reform in the 90s, to tea party politics today (we don't know WTF we want so long as it's not what the Democratic Party wants and it hurts Obama)... they really feel like their opportunity is now.

And IMHO if the White House doesn't stand up and fight, pull out all the stops, and cut this movement off and the knees, we are heading for disaster. It's line-in-the-sand time. it's time to play hardball politics.

You know what's funny? PBO has had some success trying to be the adult in the room, the guy that is willing to go some distance to be reasonable. That's well and good and I am sure appeals to a significant number of independents and centrist voters. But when I talk to folks that I know are not politically consumed--but voted for President Obama in '08--almost every one of them says he has not been a strong leader in their opinion. They want (and I suspect a lot of people in the middle, leaning left, and farther left) a "Give 'Em Hell Harry" and that's not what they perceive they have in this "cerebral" and seemingly reactive administration.

**jaxx** · 08-08-2011, 04:40 PM

I don't want a give em hell Harry, I thought the Cowboy Diplomacy moved back to Dallas. I had enough of the bravado and the blustering and never want to see it again....ever. Lines in the sand are good for one thing....rubbing them out and making new ones.

**Baltoman991** · 08-08-2011, 04:46 PM

If those you know who voted for Obama in 2008 are slamming him now for not being a hell raiser then they paid no attention to the man while he campaigned.

As Jaxx said above, I to am tired of the Cowboy mentality and the my way or the highway (or as Bush put it, you're either with us or against us) crap.

Obama will continue to be Obama win or lose in 2012 he will not lower his standards to satisfy the whiners that are infesting the party.

**Treestar** · 08-08-2011, 04:54 PM

Anyone who goes on about needing a strong leader is just parroting pundits.

I recall being politically apathetic. In those days I did not think about the President, and certainly never required strong leadership or grandstanding from him. (that was during Reagan, Bush I and latter Clinton).

**Still Sensible** · 08-08-2011, 04:54 PM

I'm just saying that I fear the middle--the ones that decide elections--seem to me to be seeing him as less than a strong leader. I admit that this is an observation based solely on people that I talk to that I know voted for him in '08.

I do not want a George W Cowboy, but there was nothing wrong with Harry standing up to the "do nothing congress" of his day. There was nothing wrong with JFK standing up to the steel industry or, in no uncertain terms, drawing a line in the ocean against the USSR missiles in Cuba. There was nothing wrong with Bill Clinton calling out Newt and his minions when they shut down the federal government in '95.

These great democrats were not "Cowboys," but they took advantage of strategic opportunities to stand up to their foes. I suggest now would be strategic opportunity for PBO to do the same.

I will stand by President Obama and work (and donate, already have) to get him reelected. My suggestion is, I believe, a constructive one.

**Baltoman991** · 08-08-2011, 04:57 PM

Thats just the point, the man has stood up time and time again only to be slapped down not only by Republicans, but by his own party.

I don't know what more the man can do to get his message out. He's given pressers 4 or 5 times in the past two weeks doing exactly what you're saying here, imploring Congress to do something but as usual, it falls on deaf ears.

He's a strong leader, a smart leader and gets his point across without the macho attitude. To some thats not good enough and to those I say to bad.

**SeattleGirl** · 08-08-2011, 05:00 PM

Harry could give 'em hell because he wasn't a black man. I mean, let's face it, there are people who often would say "Right on!" when a white man let loose who would look very negatively upon a black man who did the same, even if that black man happened to be the President of the United States.

It sucks. It's wrong. But unfortunately, it is still a truth in this country.

I'm not saying Obama should be a milquetoast, and I don't think he is. And yes, sometimes I wish he would bring on a little more anger (like in the Friday night presser he did a few weeks ago). But there is much more negativity attached to a person of color expressing anger.

Sigh....sometimes I wish I could teleport myself 50 to 100 years in the future. Maybe this crap wouldn't still be a part (an ugly part) of the fabric of this country. And maybe a man or a woman, regardless of color, could get angry when the situation calls for it without recrimination.

**OptimistesMaddie** · 08-08-2011, 07:50 PM

(08-08-2011 05:00 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote: Harry could give 'em hell because he wasn't a black man. I mean, let's face it, there are people who often would say "Right on!" when a white man let loose who would look very negatively upon a black man who did the same, even if that black man happened to be the President of the United States.

It sucks. It's wrong. But unfortunately, it is still a truth in this country.

I'm not saying Obama should be a milquetoast, and I don't think he is. And yes, sometimes I wish he would bring on a little more anger (like in the Friday night presser he did a few weeks ago). But there is much more negativity attached to a person of color expressing anger.

Sigh....sometimes I wish I could teleport myself 50 to 100 years in the future. Maybe this crap wouldn't still be a part (an ugly part) of the fabric of this country. And maybe a man or a woman, regardless of color, could get angry when the situation calls for it without recrimination.

Seattlegirl you have nailed it. President Obama simply cannot show his anger, his true anger at what the other side is doing. Many of us live in the same environment in our work places. We have to be politically savy and understand that there will always be an undertone in our environments.

It really is sad...

**Still Sensible** · 08-08-2011, 05:07 PM

Sadly, you have a valid point SeattleGirl and one that I believe guides much of the President's public persona.

You know, some years ago the MSM would have done some of this push back, but now that they are all part of the corporate establishment you don't see much of that any more.... unless it's pushing back on democrats or liberal thinking.

**SeattleGirl** · 08-08-2011, 05:36 PM

(08-08-2011 05:07 PM)Still Sensible Wrote: Sadly, you have a valid point SeattleGirl and one that I believe guides much of the President's public persona.

You know, some years ago the MSM would have done some of this push back, but now that they are all part of the corporate establishment you don't see much of that any more.... unless it's pushing back on democrats or liberal thinking.

Yes they would have, but as you say, they are all part of the corporate establishment now. How I long for the days when reporters actually reported news and pushed against the "lies and the lying liars who tell them." These days, they are more interested in manipulating the news than reporting it.

And the fact that they either stand silently while the lying liars spew their BS, or egg them on, says a lot about the shoddy state of the news media these days.

**Willinois** · 08-08-2011, 05:47 PM

Yes. He should do the same for those who approved torture during Bush's term.

Even when Obama does sound and act tough it's ignored by the third-party-left pundits. They ignore facts that don't fit the narrative.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 08-08-2011, 07:06 PM

**sandnsea** · 08-08-2011, 11:42 PM

Truman was very nearly defeated in 1948 and was so unpopular in 1952 that he decided not to run. He was up against some crazies too, the Dixiecrats who are really the same as the Tea Party. Perhaps there are lessons to learn from Give Em Hell Harry, besides giving people hell.

**Willinois** · 08-08-2011, 11:54 PM

(08-08-2011 11:42 PM)sandnsea Wrote: Truman was very nearly defeated in 1948 and was so unpopular in 1952 that he decided not to run. He was up against some crazies too, the Dixiecrats who are really the same as the Tea Party. Perhaps there are lessons to learn from Give Em Hell Harry, besides giving people hell.

Most of the cynical pundits wouldn't have voted for Truman anyway. They obviously would have been Henry Wallace supporters so it's kind of ironic that they hold up Truman as some kind of model. They would have been biting Truman's ankles just as much as they attack Obama.