Supporting President Obama Doesn't Always Mean Agreeing With Him

This seems almost to obvious to post, but I have had so many comment on another post in this group to the effect that I and other progressives worship the ground Obama walks on, stick our heads in the sand where he is concerned, etc., that I feel the need to clarify, and perhaps refer to this post when this obnoxious comments are made. If you want to criticize my positions, then criticize my real positions, rather than whatever crazy ideas you have about liberals and progressives in your head.

I support President Obama. I like him a whole lot better than the last president. I think any president starting his or her term after the financial collapse in late 2008 would be making some very unpopular not always right decisions and would be up for a lot of criticism. I don't think he is a Marxist. If he is a socialist, then so were most presidents since the New Deal. I don't agree with some of the decisions he has made. I think Republican leadership would slit their own throats before giving him any credit for some of the things he has accomplished. I think much more would be accomplished, and as a nation we would be better off, if Republican representatives had not decided to make obstructing legislation their primary goal. And I think corrupt, powerful corporations win when we are down on the ground calling each other names and letting hysteria reign. 

EvesHarvest EvesHarvest
56-60, F
12 Responses Aug 11, 2010

"Do not look behind the curtain."

That's right. Keep people focused on the mosque in NY, and hopefully they won't think too much about the push to get the Bush tax cuts extended for the rich.

Polarization<br />
<br />
Polarization on issues that aren' really the mos important issues at hand.

I think that is a good way to put it, that they live in a binary world. When people are scared, it is easier to fall into that kind of thinking.

It's as if Republicans and the ant-Obama crowd are binary. It's black or white. No grey.<br />
I think they are congenitally incapable of understanding the concept of ambiguity. Or maybe they're just scared.

Kergan, it was such a wasted moment. I think losing Ted Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts took the democrats completely by surprise.

I have one question. Whe the demicrates had a fillabuster proof majority in the senate and an overwelming majority in the house why did they need the republicans to vote for any thing? On healthcare the republicans could do nothing to stop it. The demicrates didn't need a single republican vote in either house for it to pass. This would be a net obstructing the flow of a river there just wasn't enough there..

Of course not... it is too literate and moderate for them.

Thank you, Sara, not that it will get read by the people it was meant for!

I applaud this, EvesHarvest -- well reasoned and well written!

That is a very frightening thought. But then, hey, she would probably quit half way through.

Businessmen said "we can self regulate", keep the government off our backs!<br />
Stock market went boom, boom! (crashed)<br />
Why didn't the government enforce the laws?<br />
<br />
<br />
Obama will create new laws to help big business "self regulate", preventing this disaster from happening again.<br />
That' why we have a "two party system"<br />
And the next president could be Sarah Palin?<br />
I know it scares me too.