I suspect that I am one of many who voted for Obama in 2008 and now find myself not even listening to his speeches anymore. Why? Because, I've come to the point where I believe little if anything that the man has to say. We've heard the pretty words so many times only to see them followed up by no action at all or any almost immediate capitulation to GOP demagogues. Do I want the haters and political whores of the GOP to prevail? Not at all. It's just that it's too painful to listen to Obama and know that his words mean nothing. At least nothing of significance. And because of this reality, I believe that
Obama's going to have a Hell of a time motivating many 2008 supporters to go to the polls and pull the lever for him in 2012. Perhaps a Rick Perry or Michele
Bachmann as the GOP candidate would push folks to hold their nose and vote for Obama. If the GOP candidate is not someone truly scary, then all bets are off. An article in the
Rolling Stone looks at this frustration in the context of job creation. Here are some highlights:
I was in an airport in Florida yesterday and was forced into a terrible, Sophie's Choice-type choice. . . . . it was either sit underneath a full-volume broadcast of our fearless president bellowing out his latest hollow promises, or the hellish alternative: retreat to gates full of screaming five year-old children, all of them jacked up on sugar and bawling their eyes out because it was the end of Labor Day weekend and their cruel parents were dragging them home from Disneyworld.
I ended up choosing the screaming children.
Obama hasn't been a total disaster on labor. Most notably, he stepped up in the Wisconsin mess and at least took sides in that debate, calling the push to end collective bargaining rights an "assault" on unions.
But I remember following Obama on the campaign trail and hearing all sorts of promises before union-heavy crowds. He said he would raise the minimum wage every year; he said he would fight free-trade agreements. He also talked about repealing the Bush tax cuts and ending tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.
It's not just that he hasn't done those things. The more important thing is that the people he's surrounded himself with are not labor people, but stooges from Wall Street. Barack Obama has as his chief of staff a former top-ranking executive from one of the most grossly corrupt mega-companies on earth, JP Morgan Chase.
Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity yesterday reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack Obama has started doing again what he does best – play the part of a progressive. He's good at it. It sounds like he has a natural affinity for union workers and ordinary people when he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to entirely make up his inner circle.
I just don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to listen to him.
I suspect that I am one of many who voted for Obama in 2008 and now find myself not even listening to his speeches anymore. Why? Because, I've come to the point where I believe little if anything that the man has to say. We've heard the pretty words so many times only to see them followed up by no action at all or any almost immediate capitulation to GOP demagogues. Do I want the haters and political whores of the GOP to prevail? Not at all. It's just that it's too painful to listen to Obama and know that his words mean nothing. At least nothing of significance. And because of this reality, I believe that Obama's going to have a Hell of a time motivating many 2008 supporters to go to the polls and pull the lever for him in 2012. Perhaps a Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann as the GOP candidate would push folks to hold their nose and vote for Obama. If the GOP candidate is not someone truly scary, then all bets are off. An article in the Rolling Stone looks at this frustration in the context of job creation. Here are some highlights:
1 comment:
Jonathan Chait makes some good points. However, I continue to believe that things could have been quite different in a positive, progressive way if Obama had acted as a leader rather than a follower-in-chief.
"Leading from behind" has NOT been a successful strategy and he continues to allow the GOP to frame the debate. Reacting instead of leading is NOT what the country needs.
Post a Comment