The Expectations Gamble

Reposted from another site:

It will be interesting to see how that part of the base reacts if Gitmo isn’t closed down.

Part of his “base” will be howling mad. But it’s always been an unrealistic expectation, and *poster’s name removed* characterization of the issue is unfair.No one but the executive – and at that, at a certain level, knows specific security measures. People on the outside don’t have to shut up just because the executive branch knows more about the ins and outs than the legislative branch does. People on the outside have a right, indeed, a responsibility to speak up. I’ve yet to see ANY president follow through on campaign promises precisely – the day they sit down with the lame-duck pres, their entire perspective shifts. I saw it with Clinton, I saw it with Bush II. I vaguely recollect it even with Reagan (wasn’t quite old enough). Bottom line – more information necessarily changes things, and if the first president couldn’t talk about it, there’s no reason to expect that the next one can. Meaningful differences about policy doesn’t mean that one can simply upend existing conditions, and the conditions inherited with this torture/extra-legal activities can’t be undone with a wave of a finger.While we’re busy talking about the unrealistic expectations of the “base” and arguing that the president is nothing but a charlatan, let’s talk about one specific situation which he inherited.The president inherits a situation where we’ve rounded up people in the war theater, sometimes without any knowledge of their guilt or innocence, sometimes based entirely on hearsay. We’ve detained them without the right to contest their detainment – and we subjected them to “harsh interrogation techniques.” (Read: torture.) If some of them weren’t criminal terrorists before, they might be now. They might NOW be radicalized against us, and might NOW be dangerous, where they weren’t when we snagged them. Some of them might be guilty as crap, but rather than simply try them, throw them in jail or execute them, we decided to torture them, making some of the evidence against them inadmissible in a court of law. President Bush’s solution to this problem was the establishment of military tribunals – candidate Obama opposed these outright. They are extra-legal… exist in their own sphere of jurisprudence, and with very little in the way of actual rights for the detainees to make these courts anything resembling American justice.President Obama has reinstated the tribunals – to the glee of folks on the right, who want to claim this as some sort of vindication of Bush/Cheney. Folks on the left are pissed because Obama promised to get rid of tribunals. Meanwhile, Obama, unable to make tribunals go away, nevertheless addressed the underlying complaints of the tribunals – providing the defendants with rights they previously did not have. If anyone reads this as some sort of vindication of Bush/Cheney, I don’t know how they do it – if Bush/Cheney was vindicated, the president would not have needed to add the missing rights to these tribunals – he’d have just kept the tribunals and kept on going. That’s not what happened.Say whatever you want. We don’t always have to agree with the president, but thus far, I’ve had very little reason to be dismayed with him (TARP being the big exception). He’s carried on just as I expected him to – just as I voted for him to – pragmatically, without too much kowtowing to ideological purists, and with respect for dissenting opinions.Finally – I’ll just throw this in, for good measure:

You know, Dick Cheney had a strong perspective about national security. It was tested in the early years of the Bush administration, and I think it resulted in a series of very bad decisions. I think what’s interesting is that, in some ways, Dick Cheney actually lost these arguments inside the Bush administration.And so he may have won early with Colin Powell and Condi Rice, but over the last two or three years of the Bush administration, I think there was a recognition among Republicans and Bush administration officials that these enhanced interrogation techniques that were being applied—that they had applied early on—were potentially counterproductive; that a posture of never talking to our enemies, of unilateral action, of framing national security only in terms of the application of force, often unilateral—that that wasn’t producing.And so it’s interesting to me to see the vice president spending so much time trying to vindicate himself and relitigate the last eight years when, as I said, I think, actually, a lot of these arguments were settled even before we took over the White House.

In other words – Bush himself was already beginning to course correct, and Obama is continuing that – maybe more aggressively, but still in line with what was already happening. As it should be.QT

Just read the opening of Greenwald’s article… and now I have a question. Does Greenwald disagree with President Obama’s assessment that Bush was beginning to reign in Cheney at the end of his presidency? Don’t the various CIA cya memos demonstrate this?QT

The way some on the Left are reacting to Obama reminds me of what Bill Maher said on his show: stay loyal to the principle, not the person. Sounds exactly like what the Left is doing and while it sounds admirable they should be prepared when the GOP starts to use their own words against Obama – which they should if they want to raise doubts.I was reading a free newspaper in NYC and one half a page was about Obama disappointing the Left, followed by blogger (actually commentators) quotes from Dkos and Democratic Underground expressing such disappointment in Obama that one of them removed an Obama bumper sticker from his car. Stuff like this are all over the blogosphere, but when you hear about this on the MSM, blogs pop up saying the MSM is overreacting.Recently over at TPM, someone made a long list of why Obama is Bush and went on to make some inflammatory remarks. What happened? A clique of TPMer’s slammed him. But the funny thing is everything he said was said by all those very same bloggers – “He betrayed us”, “he’s sounding like Bush”, “I worked so hard to get him elected”. They all said it before, but when an outsider tries to jump on the band wagon of “Give Me My Vote Back” – they cry foul. I don’t get it.My gut feeling tells me that Obama will remain popular with mainstream America while the Left and the Right criticize non-stop. And if he remains popular despite the attacks, the Left will become irrelevant – they’ll have little to no pull if they want him to enact one of their policies. Chris Matthews likes to talk about dancin’ with the one that brung ya – Well the Left helped (and thanks to the other 50 million people) him get elected, but Obama is the only one that get them into the V.I.P room – work together guys.Sorry for the rambling. I’m not as good as you Bob. I just wanted to get that off my chest. Please seriously address the expectations issue because I am sick and tired of being labeled a Kool Aid drinker when all I want to express is that he can’t do everything by himself with the stroke of a pen.

One of the things that has always kept the left & left-leaning moderates from being very effective is their refusal to blindly follow the party leadership. “Sticking to their principles” and voting for Nader worked out very well for the Country so well the first time that they had a repeat performance.

Don’t get me wrong, I think going along in lockstep (or is that goose-step?) like the republicans isn’t a good thing. But tearing yourselves down via nasty, public infighting is just as bad.

Thanks, Bob. You said exactly what I’ve been wanting to say – but in a much more coherent manner. I’m afraid that the furthest left among us rather surprisingly bought into the Republican propaganda (endlessly repeated in the recent election) that Obama was the most liberally liberal senator in the history of senators or liberalism. Consequently, every time Obama does or says something that isn’t 100% super duper liberal, they have a meltdown. They seem amazed to find out that he is a pragmatist and even (GASP!!) a politician. Sure, there are plenty of things I wish he would do, too, but does any sane person really think he’s as bad as Bush? Would any of them have preferred that John McCain won the election?

Brutly — I agree. Liberalism is about intellectualism to a certain extent, and therefore it only makes sense that we scrutinize our leadership irrespective of party. But I think we do ourselves a disservice by losing perspective and making unreasonable demands.I voted for Nader in 2000 because I was disillusioned with the Democrats. I’m proud that I voted my conscience, but there were too many Democrats like me and we ended up with George Effing Bush.Also bear in mind that the Democratic leadership is not without blame. They SHOULD pay more attention to the left. But there’s a right way to get them to do this, and there’s a wrong way. Stomping our feet and holding our breath — threatening to storm off — only makes us look unserious and, honestly, like the tea baggers.

Well done sir, well done.

Indeed, Brutly. I’ve often said that we need our own Karl Rove/Tom Delay to keep the Democrats in line and our agenda advancing, but the reality is I really don’t want anything like them. We’ve seen what governance by fiat results in. That’s the fundamental difference between the two parties. Republicans rule, and Democrats govern.I’m willing to be a bit more patient until 2010. A little voice inside of me, maybe the rational, patient part of my soul, keeps telling me that perhaps they are waiting out the midterms in hopes of ousting a few more Republicans. Maybe getting rid of just enough of them will allow Obama to just go at it full tilt his last two years of his first term. If he plans to run again, and I hope he does, universal healthcare (or some reasonable facsimile), ending one of the wars, a rebound of the economy, ending DADT, and a whole host of other reforms in those two years could lead to another electoral pounding for the Republicans in 2012.

Liberal Democrats seem to be under the assumption that they face an enemy as honorable as they are. The Republicon Party, as a whole, has repeatedly shown that it does not not respect intellectual acuity. Matter of fact, it despises it. They will not question their leaders when they see them fuck up; they will force you to see the fuck up as beneficial. THEY DO NOT RESPECT YOU OR ANY OF US. They don’t even respect their own, at this point.Folks like Greenwald, I feel, are attempting to contend with the waves, so to speak. These folks portend to be the voice of those who voted Obama into office. Does this man not understand that there are people out there that do not know who he is? With that fact, there are also those who had their individual reasons for voting for Obama that had nothing to do with what he’s so concerned about.I’m reading up on all this material concerning documents, memos, photos, testimonies, and whatnot, and it all seems to me that those on opposite sides continue to come to the same conclusion: Obama being, in some way, shape, or form, “like Bush, or worse.” Never mind the minutia some focus on to trump their peers and other such spectacles. They always come to the same conclusion.Woe unto them! President Obama is letting them down. So very, very down, down, down, down, down.Now how can this be? I mean, it is impossible. They had so, so much faith in the man coming in, didn’t they? Are they no longer believing in that CHANGE they were being told they SHOULD believe in?Oh NO!No, no, no, no, NOOOOOO!!!Now they’re telling us all of their disappointment 100 or so days into the presidency.This is a grave development. Very, very grave.Liberals are as disappointed with their president as the con-servatives.Very, very grave.I have nothing more to say.I’ll check out the rest of what Greenwald has to say in that article the next time I eat a Wendy’s hamburger, which I figure will be in about six weeks from now when I’m stuck babysitting my brother’s kids or something.Til then, ciao, folks.

Bob et al – I think we should remember that people like Greenwald perform a valuable role in holding the President to account and helping to ensure that he fulfills his campaign rhetoric. I think Bob is writing from the “political realist” point of view whereas Greenwald often seems to write from the “rule of law idealist” point of view.Point being: it’s a good thing that the Left does not succumb to hero worship of their elected officials and instead criticizes them for actions that are inconsistent with the platform they run on.

Some of the voices I’m hearing now are the same ones I heard after Obama won the DNC nomination and began to reach out to moderates and centrists. Thankfully, then we became aware of our own hysteria and remembered the bigger picture.We’re just a few months into this, fellas. Part of the art of governing … good governing (not the bullying we saw the last 8 years) is to build consensus. Obama came into office with an incredibly ambitious agenda in the face of 2 wars, an economic crisis, and a government that had been wired from top to bottom for accommodating and advancing a Republican agenda – and though the Republican party may be weakened, it’s propaganda machine is not.Let’s not forget that among Obama’s promises, the one he repeated the most (and was mocked for the most) was his promise to find common ground and work to bring the country together under a common purpose. This in itself implies compromise. As Lee stated a few days ago, yes, Obama has to lead, but he also has to build a trust with those he is leading. He needs the full cooperation of the CIA to fight terrorists. He is going to need to build up trust with moderates and “Obamacons” if he wants to build a true consensus for health care reform and overturning “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.”Just because Obama makes some decisions we disagree with, it does not mean he has abandoned the left, and it may mean he’s laying the groundwork for something better, or as he might say, putting off the perfect for the good.Today, I jumped on youtube to watch the Notre Dame commencement speech, and was profoundly impressed with the message of Obama’s speech even in the face of some obnoxious protesters. I get the sense that his mission is something higher than just achieving liberal ends, in that perhaps he wishes to set a better example of how Americans can work together to solve these problems regardless of our ideology.Just my 2 cents. As you said before, Bob, we won’t get everything, but we ARE getting a lot, and this guy is doing it in a way that leaves me feeling proud we elected him.And p.s. If Gitmo doesn’t get closed. I don’t blame Obama. I blame Harry Reid.

I’ve always felt that he was a liberal with moderate tendencies and I think he understands that sometimes you have to compromise to get what you want. He’s trying to get healthcare reform, energy reform, etc., but we forget that not only does he have to battle Republicans for it, he has to fight his own party – conservative Democrats. He wanted a huge stimulus package, but he wasn’t going to get the votes if he didn’t make some concessions, so he did what he had to do because he looked at the bigger picture. He want healthcare and energy reform, but everyday he has to battle Congress – Rep. & Dem.I hate “that’s not change we can believe in” or “i voted for change not the same” or “he’s just like Bush.” How his he like Bush? People want him to just change things with a snap of the finger. It’s easy to be on the campaign trail and say one thing, but when your actually in the Oval Office, certain issues just aren’t that easy. The worst thing the left can do is turn into the right and start putting down there own. And that was my biggest fear for any Dem. who won the election. I’m not saying not to criticize the Pres. but it seems to me that people are panicking. He’s handled being the president the way I thought he would and the way he campaigned – with humility, intelligence, patience, pragmatism, and progressivism sprinkled in. We knew this when we voted for him, so I’m confused at what all the fuss is about.

“Stomping our feet and holding our breath — threatening to storm off — only makes us look unserious and, honestly, like the tea baggers.”Christ this needs to be said FAR more often between a lot more people….

Left Right Center are just convenient labels that signify only whatever prejudices one wants to have handy to justify their arguments.Allison wrote “he can’t do everything by himself with the stroke of a pen.”I think that sums up the expectations everyone has. Obama himself said during the campaign that we have to make him.But how? Who is listening to? Certainly not you and me.And on the other hand he most certainly CAN do quite a bit with the pen. Just as Bush caused untold damage that will take decades to undo, Obama can start using the pen to undo them and lay the foundation that will continue to resolve issues for decades.Take the Glass Steagall Act of 1937. It lasted until 1999. It did great until then.Sorry to pop your bubble, but taking single payer off the table isn’t change anybody can believe in. My conservative neighbors in the healthcare profession are really upset with that. How much longer can the system go on when 50 fucking percent of all bankruptcies are medical related?Have you ever wondered what it’s like to be in the health provider’s shoes and not getting paid and not being able to meet basic healthcare while the insurance industry cleans up?The sooner Reid and Pelosi hit the road, the better for all of us. And as soon as Obama start putting his genteel ways aside and starts busting chops – hello Rahm, are you there? – the sooner he can lay the foundation for change.Right now I’d have to agree with Greenwald: just like Bush. SO what if it took him 6 years to realize that he can call the shots and not Dick Ass Wipe Cheney.

I knew when I voted for Obama that he did not have the same lefty beliefs I have. He is a Christian, politically moderate, Capitalist. But I knew that he is a brilliant man who will do a lot of good for our country.I think a lot of the anger from the left comes from people who thought they had a candidate that shared their same core beliefs. They had blinders on, drank the Koolaid, whatever. They feel betrayed.I don’t feel betrayed, but I would like to see a lot less pandering to Wall Street and the banks. I would also like to see a lot less military spending.I would also like to see government run health insurance as an option for me.I would like to see the war criminals prosecuted.But I’m not going to bash the president. I sure as hell am not going to vote for Nader.We can demand what we want without being a bunch of self destructive babies.

Peter wrote:>>Right now I’d have to agree with Greenwald: just like Bush.That’s just ridiculous. Would Bush have signed Lily Ledbetter? Would Bush have banned torture? Would Bush have passed the recovery bill? Would Bush have amped up emissions standards? Would Bush have called for the closing of Guantanamo? Would Bush be pushing for a public healthcare option? And on and on and on…

You’re right, Bob.I like the thoughtful tone Barack Obama sets.Whether it’s energy, foreign relations, abortion, or basically anything.I feel smarter as a nation just having him playing a leading role in the national discussion.I know I’m voting for him again. I’ve aready voted for him three times here in Illinois. You said, “I only expected that the awfulness would begin to recede and that we’d have a serious shot at clean energy, national healthcare, protecting a woman’s right to choose, etc.”Ditto, and then some.For some reason, I can’t imgaine where the Democratic party would be without Barack Obama.

Wow…I’m not sure I could disagree more.Sure, “Obama is Bush” is stupid. He’s not, and there are a lot of areas that Obama will do good things.But on issues of civil liberties and rule of law, he has not done the things he said he was going to do. In fact, he has done the exact opposite in many cases.Now those of us who carry civil liberties, etc. as a main issue are being called extreme left. We’re being told to just deal with being thrown under the bus because Obama’s going to do great things in other areas (eventually… probably).We’re scoffed at for “not understanding” that Obama is actually a politician, or “pragmatic”, or a centrist. Which all seems to be code for “you should have expected him to lie to you!”I read all the time about how we projected our beliefs on him and got butthurt when he didn’t actually share them.Not in my case. I’m just dismayed that we still have someone in office that says one thing and does the opposite. Someone who talked a good game on the issues that I care about, then did things diametrically opposed to his stated beliefs.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I really, truly, honestly WISH that I could attack recent actions by the President. Unfortunately, my hands have been full trying to put down ridiculous claims that he’s a socialist, or nationalizing the car industry, or purposefully tanking the economy, or a Muslim, or a terrorist, or putting terrorists in your backyard, or any number of other positively ridiculous claims that the Republicans have put forth on the Bandwagon to Insanity. I sincerely wish I could debate his actions on FISA and torture, and all the rest. But I can’t.

The wingnuts are RULING the airwaves with their nonsense, and rational discourse can’t get a word in edgewise.

Late to the party, but feel I have to add: Bush was a very bad President, yes. But it doesn’t mean everything he did was bad. Which means I expect to hear more nuanced arguments than “Obama is continuing X and Y Bush administration policy.” Tell me why the policy is bad; don’t tell me I should against it just because it’s something that Bush did. And, while there is reasoned discourse out there, it seems like there’s a lot more of this shorthand and that’s not the least bit helpful to anyone.

Bob, this is an interesting topic. In context, I’m a native midwesterner, lifelong Democrat who considered myself a centrist of some sort. Over the past few years, I’ve slewed more to the Left, perhaps as a reaction to the Bush/Cheney regime.There have been several decisions/non-decisions of this Administration that initially frustrated me. Then, after I thought about it for a while, it began to make sense to me. Some of this may be my pent-up impatience and frustration based on the past eight years. Let’s not forget, Obama has only been in office for four (4) months.I think aside from Obama’s oratory skills, he’s a pretty shrewd manager of people. One example, IMO, is his approach to bipartisanship. If it would have been me, and after the first few rebuffs by the GOP, I’d have told them to go fuck themselves, I’m running the show now. However, I think his continued insistence will pay dividends in that the GOP will eventually moderate and be critical supporters for the public good, or they will ingrain their stubborness and idiocy into the political fabric and be cast aside by the constituants.I think that part of the Left’s problem is that so much is expected, there is an impatience. Obama is on the right track. I think his first four months have worked out well, and he is setting the table for further progress. It’s refreshing to see his approach as being subtle, ongoing pressure to manuever opinion and action compared to GOP’s hammer-eggshell approach.He’s a keeper.