Bill Maher: Obama wilted

December 5, 2010 | By | 3 Replies More

Comedian Bill Maher puts the turning point exactly where I do: Barack Obama would rather have had some plan he could call a “health care plan” than to actually fight for the public option. Why? Beats me. But that sent a strong signal that this president wasn’t going to fight for something on which he ran his campaign. Since then, he’s wilted on Wall Street and net neutrality.

In the face of Republican obstructionism, you won’t win by compromising, yet that is the strategy Obama has repeatedly chosen:

Share

Tags:

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erich Vieth says:

    One of President Obama's greatest mistakes is that he allowed the Republicans the opportunity to blame Obama for our financial crisis.

    "Let's stop pretending. Barack Obama is a disaster as a crisis president. He has taken an economic collapse that was the result of Republican ideology and Republican policies, and made it the Democrats' fault. And the more that he is pummeled, the more he bends over."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/what

  2. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    It is impossible to counter blatant obstructionism with compromise, but it is also impossible to fight obstructionism with more obstructionism.

    The most effective tactic would be to not give concessions to the Republicans, but to offer legislation for the good of the nation, and allow the obstructionists to show themselves to the public for what the are. The obstructionist would have a choice forced on the to represent their constituents, or the party. Then the progressives would have to keep reminding the public who put party over the people until the next election. The Republicans an advantage here because they know it is much easer to appeal to base emotions of hate and anger that to appeal to reason.

    I've tried to contact my Senators (Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander) in an attempt to get them to represent the people over the party. Every attempt gets intercepted by staffers and I get the standard canned bullshit response form letter.I get the impression that, if I showed up at either one's office door, with a suitcase filled with unmarked. untraceable contribution money, I would suddenly be their BFF until someone turned up with a better offer.

    From what I can tell, Republicans seem to make an odd assumption about the nature of Democratic representation. I'm not certain if I can communicate the concept, but I shall try.

    Republicans elect politicians who they feel best embodies and reflects the interests of the individual constituents. In the words od a former Republican senator: "What I want represents what the people want!"

    Once elected, republican legislators tend to isolate themselves from their constituents follow their own course, which they believe the people want. It is basically an aristocratic approach to government.

    The Democrats, listen to the voters, and as a result, are less focused, less single minded that the Republicans. This makes the art of negotiation and compromise their way.

Leave a Reply