One indicator of the hpocrtical rot afflicting political discourse in this country is the incessant whining -- heard daily here on the DR -- of people who vehemently opposed Obama's prescriptions for change when he articulated them during the campaign -- and continue to launch vigorous (albeit largely ineffective and counterproductive) attacks on him -- now seeking partisan advantage by criticizing him because he hasn't brought enough "change" of the sort they would not support on his worst day or their best.

I think Quindlen has made some incisive points in this essay. Obama's essentially a centrist -- those who brand him as a "leftist" or "socialist" or whatever the negative label du jour might be are, of course, themselves usally to be found among the loons dancing around the bonfire they've started to warm themselves out in the boonies, at the outer limits of American political life -- someone who looks for consensus. (You may govern without consensus in our system but usually not terribly effectively and not for very long.)

I think we may well see some of what Quindlen's talking about in the beavhior of Congress when it comes to reforming the America's health care industry. And by this I mean that while Obama is seldom to be seen out in front, riding the white horse for this issue he has made his position pretty clear; indicated where he thinks things should go within the practical limits imposed by the system itself. (This is where I would fault him, for I'm one of those who would break down the doors to get it down, damn the consequences; his course is different and, usually -- but not always -- the more prudent one that tends to leave less wreckage and burning embers in its wake.)

On that topic, is it not time for Congress to take some leadership -- there are three branches of government and all need to be in working order for the system to even have a chance of doing whatever it was constructed to accomplish -- rather than wait for the Executive to do the hard work of positioning and taking the heat? Let/make Harry Reid, et. al., do what it is they were elected to do. (The senators and representatives on Capitol Hill are, of course, fearful of what voters will do if and when the politicians must come down on one side or another of a hotly contested, close-thing issue. Which is why their "solutions" are usually nothing more than stop gaps, not intended as real public policy but highly transitory palliatives.)

The Founding Fathers intended the president to be an inexperienced incompetent egghead blowhard who gets nothing accomplished, divides the country, and makes more TV appearances than Shamwow?

The Founding Fathers intended the president to be an inexperienced incompetent...blowhard who gets nothing accomplished...?
#2 | Posted by cookfish

No.
Which is but one of a myriad of reasons you're not president.

#2 | Posted by cookfish | Flag: Didn't/Can't/Won't Read Article and Wouldn't/Couldn't Comprehend Even If He/She/It Did

Damn, you're unfunny and unoriginal after a binge. Crawl back in that bottle, find an edge, and nurture your delusions. This should be your motto to live by:

From time to time the American people participate in a mass delusion about how their government works.

Cookfish just described Dubya to a T except for the TV appearances. Those things are needed in these trying times. What's more reassuring than the President telling His employers(That's US BTW) that He is on the job doing the peoples work. Dubya couldn't be bothered with THAT responsibility.

Larry

#5 | Posted by cookfish | Flag: Third-Rate Vermin Impersonation

The FF's also didn't itend for our leader to still be in campaign mode 10 months after being sworn in:

Therein lies the problem. While campaigning could centre around soaring rhetoric, governing is altogether messier. It involves tough, unpopular choices and cutting deals with opponents. It requires doing things rather than talking about them, let alone just being.

Mr Obama is showing little appetite for this. Instead of being the commander-in-chief, he is the campaigner-in-chief.

Larry -

Cookfish's problem is he didn't read the article, wouldn't know what Quindlen's saying even if he did because it's "too complicated" and "nuanced." Cookie likes his poitics presented to him the GOPiggy way, with his hands firmly gripping his socks.

Hey Larry, since you like TV Bammy so much, let's start a new show, So You Want to Be President for your hero, and he can be on every night. As long as we get some one else to run the country in the meantime that isn't named Biden.

By the way, Crocky, "Flag: Didn't/Can't/Won't Read Article and Wouldn't/Couldn't Comprehend Even If He/She/It Did" wasn't intended to be funny, just an accurate assessment of your pathetic performance and inifinite shortcomings in the reading-comprehending-thinking department.

LMAO Doc Sarvis the only socks He will be holding are the ones hung on the fireplace for Santa Claus to give Him a clue. LMAO Gotta love it.

Larry

Larry -

Doc's problem is that the human body can only process just so much cheap gin over a given period, and it really makes for one messed-up individual over a 10-hour period, especially when they go on a blog and cut n' paste such claptrap as the above article.

Even If He/She/It Did"

Copied directly from ME, thank you. At least you take notes.

Hey Cookfish I had to put up with Your cockamammy Dubya for 8 Years. Time for You to SDASTFU.

Larry

"...such claptrap as the above article."

So, what issues, exactly, do you have with the above article?

Larry,

I can only say that home schooling has failed you.

Please go away AngryDad, and go bother PissedOffFamily

Mr. Offensive why such a bad mood? Fear of the Redskins winning tomorrow?

Hey I can not help I was taught in a CONSERVATIVE ran Public School system. If I am dumb as a sack of potatoes it's CONSERVATIVES that rotted My brain out. Sorry cookfish.

Larry

"Doc's problem is that the human body can only process just so much cheap gin over a given period,..."

Doc's problem is that his brain is incurably corrupted by the stuff he was smoking, drinking and injecting while spending his younger years sleeping under bridges and marching in the streets of major cities carrying signs reading, "Make love, not war." His problem may even be exacerbated by third stage syphilis contracted at Woodstock and is CERTAINLY further rotted by his association with the bearded vermin wandering the halls of academia with him. The time he spends reading the offal in the pages of Huffington Post, MoveOn and DailyKos has provided the finishing touch. He is to be pitied, all he has now is an unhealthy affection for heroes such as THIS:

"Please go away AngryDad, and go bother PissedOffFamily"

Well....there's a reasoned, intelligent response.

Something we've all come to expect from Ted.

This is a country that often has transformational ambitions but is saddled with an incremental system

The 'incremental system' is the whole point. Its part of the reason this country has made it so long.

Advocating broad shifts in law every time a new administration comes into power is beyond ridiculous. Regardless of what 'side' your on.

Newsweek expects people to pay for this shit? Looks like Doc will.

The righties here either didn't read the article or are too stupid to comprehend what it says. It basicly says that all of their irrational fear of the Socialist Obama is just that, irrational, not founded on anything he has done. It just goes to show that these folks do not form their own opinions based on the facts but take them, already formed, from right wing talkers who don't even believe what they say themselves. When the other owners of NFL teams do not want to allow Rush Limbaugh into their circle you know that he has crossed a line that even very rich, conservative business men know is beyond the pale but folks like Cookfish will still lap up whatever he says like the obedient lap dogs they are.

Every once and a while the tree of liberty needs to be pruned. The founding fathers positioned the states to have power not the imperial federal government nor did they suggest that the pay someone earns should be dictated by a governmental entity or czar. Keep walking down this line and you will not like the results. Yes both parties are culpable due to the shear numbers that refuse to step down from office rather they desire to be a lifetime member.

WTFUA!

I think some on the right think the tree of liberty needs to be burned to the ground in order to save it.

They got close a few times, Danni

The righties here either didn't read the article or are too stupid to comprehend what it says.

Why do you people attack our intelligence when we have a different opinion?

On that topic, is it not time for Congress to take some leadership -- there are three branches of government and all need to be in working order for the system to even have a chance of doing whatever it was constructed to accomplish -- rather than wait for the Executive to do the hard work of positioning and taking the heat? Let/make Harry Reid, et. al., do what it is they were elected to do. (The senators and representatives on Capitol Hill are, of course, fearful of what voters will do if and when the politicians must come down on one side or another of a hotly contested, close-thing issue. Which is why their "solutions" are usually nothing more than stop gaps, not intended as real public policy but highly transitory palliatives.)
#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Lack of courageous leadership is to be seen both in legislative as well as the executive branches.

The Founding Fathers intended the president to be an inexperienced incompetent egghead blowhard who gets nothing accomplished, divides the country,

Cook-Texas wasn't even in the Union when they wrote the Constitution, so clearly, no they weren't expecting Dubya.

#23 | Posted by wurster

Shhhh. you're using common sense and the left realoly hates that.

"I think some on the right think the tree of liberty needs to be burned to the ground in order to save it."
#26 | Posted by danni

Danni, under socialism there is no tree of liberty. Everyone is reduced to the common denominator. It has failed everywhere it is tried and not in hundreds of years like our Republic but in mere years. Socialism is not about a single united class of people. It is all about two classes of people. The political elites and the suppressed.

Look at all the politicians and their elitism. They think you are ignorant. They have even convinced you that you are ignorant. Yes, there a very few intelligent politicians but the vast majority are ignorant blowhards and crooks. Unfortunately these are the people who make decisions that affect everyone's lives.

Look at your dear leader. He hasn't really accomplished squat. That goes for from before he was elected to this day. Oh, he can read aloud wonderfully. But listen to him off the printed page and he sounds like a bumbling idiot. He can't make decisions. That is why he needs so many advisors that answer to no one except him. He has hidden his past, all of it. He did that so the people would have no idea who they were electing. Instead they voted for "Hope and Change" and wanted to see history made. Oh, history is being made all right. And sadly half of the population fell for it. Some have since wised up but it is too late. The US is now well on it's way in a downward spiral into oblivion. Obama is seeing to that.

Obama has not been able to accept he is part white. He could not accept the constitution. He despised the free market system. He does not accept the United States of America and wants to turn it into France. And as all Democrats, he lies through his teeth and loves power.

"Advocating broad shifts in law every time a new administration comes into power is beyond ridiculous. Regardless of what 'side' your on. "

Wasn't that exactly her point?

"Obama has not been able to accept he is part white. He could not accept the constitution. He despised the free market system. He does not accept the United States of America and wants to turn it into France. And as all Democrats, he lies through his teeth and loves power."

KBM proves once again his talent with obfuscation and a broad brush. Please prove your statements. Jesus, I didn't even say shit like this about President Bush in my most angry moments. I believe that both men love this country and want the best for large portions of its citizenry--the difference is in how each thinks those goals are best served. Just because someone holds a different worldview from you does not mean they are a liar or desirous of destroying the country. But you know, since you think Obama has hidden his entire life (proof?), I doubt you give a shit or are interested in consensus building or actual conversation. It's your (far right wing) way or the high way.

The so called 'founding fathers' were nothing more than a group of mafia dons who wanted their own territory away from boss george. And had not the populace fought, they would have been hanged.

The system is designed to subvert public will. They wanted it that way having just witnessed what it can do.

Actually you should be thankful that the Founding Fathers put up so many alleged "obstacles" to dramatic change or that so-called "dimwit" Geo W Bush would've been more successful accomplishing his "nefarious" agenda.

Careful what you wish for the Dems (thankfully) won't be in charge forever.

The Founding Fathers wouldn't have it any other way.

They would sit up in their graves if they ever found out how strong the federal government became, thanks to Abe and his war of northern aggression.

"the human body can only process just so much cheap gin over a given period
#13 | Posted by cookfish

Please get back to us when you've sobered up and can give a report.

The righties here either didn't read the article or are too stupid to comprehend what it says. It basicly says that all of their irrational fear of the Socialist Obama is just that, irrational, not founded on anything he has done.

#24 | Posted by danni

What kind of booze do you drink and where did you get thoes blinders? This country has gone more socalistic in the last 9 months than it has in the last 20 years. That's without government run healthcare.

Please get back to us when you've sobered up and can give a report.

#36 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

good come-back dok. I expected you to call him more than just drunk.

I just love the fear of anything vaguely smacking of this frightful bugbear called socialism.

A smattering of socialism, folks, does not have to mean fascism or even totalitarianism.

Blame the Courts, overrun by Corporate shills. Keep human rights first, resist crime and foriegn entanglements.

I distribute my disgust with politicians equally and I play no favorites. The President, Congress and the House continually fail to put the needs of Americans first. They continually send tax-payers dollars overseas when those dollars should be used here. They continually cater to lobbyists and therefore do no favors for their constituents. I hold every single one of them on Capital hill in contempt.

There are so many ways to attack this. (Let's keep it simple and let others have their day as well).

Obama's essentially a centrist -- those who brand him as a "leftist" or "socialist" or whatever the negative label du jour might be are, of course, themselves usally to be found among the loons dancing around the bonfire they've started to warm themselves out in the boonies, at the outer limits of American political life

Not the least of which, anyone who disagrees with the view is automatically ad hominem attacked as a nutcase and other choice terms. The same fate holds for anyone of the "opposing party". There is no other option. Either you agree, or your a Repub loony. News flash for Sarvis: Many people out here are neither of these.

he has made his position pretty clear; indicated where he thinks things should go within the practical limits imposed by the system itself

Second, your post title is completely appropriate, but also exposes your fearless leader. Sure let's blame the founding fathers for their vision. Why should the founding fathers place a gaping hole as Quindlen would propose and he laments (revolution)? The constitution already provides remedies such as Constitutional Convention. Why not try it the legal way? Even Obama admitted during the campaign that he wasn't so fond of the Constitution. He specifically stated that it restricts progress - - both historically and so far as he would have it. Guess what? It was intented that way. Are you familiar with the Preamble? It was designed to limit the powers of the Federal Govt. What is very unfortunate is the level that this principle has been violated - - by Presidents for dozens of administrations past. Many of the issues we have today are because of those violations, not a design flaw by the Founders! Yes even the beloved Reagan is guilty!

btw, This is front page material? It's 100% subjective viewpoint, arguably not even newsworthy. And not "centrist" as the author would imply.

The Founders had distinct leaning towards "Liberty" and away from despotism of the masses. If any "transformational" figure leans away from liberty I have a strong feeling they would look upon them with disdain. The irony of the word liberal is it's commonality with the word liberty. Like the word Gay it has a slightly different meaning today as it had in years past.

The Founding Fathers intended the president to be an inexperienced incompetent egghead blowhard who gets nothing accomplished, divides the country,

Look, Cookie, Dumbya was a lot of things.

Sure he was a closet bisexual, a brain dead coke head, a born-again moron, an inexperienced, incompetent silver spoon fed frat boy gone wild.

Sure he accomplished nothing positive and not only divided the country but the entire planet.

But an "egghead"?

WTF, dude?

Be Well.

On Topic?

Nice article by Anna Quindlen here.

Salient points, well made.

Kudos.

Be Well.

Cookfish

Loonyyyyy hahah

They let you out of the psych ward yet.

Everyday the dr right become more and more of a joke.

I would be sad if I wasn't laughing my ass off at how out of touch with reality they are.

The so called 'founding fathers' were nothing more than a group of mafia dons who wanted their own territory away from boss george. And had not the populace fought, they would have been hanged.

The system is designed to subvert public will. They wanted it that way having just witnessed what it can do.

#33 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-10-25 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Shawn are you American?

Shawn is not wrong, Fair. He just chooses a harsh way to express his point. While he is correct in fact, I'd argue the founding fathers had benevolent intent than he may have implied.

Read your Federalists Papers wherein you will find discussion of how to prevent the will of the majority to suppress that of the minority. Its supposed to be a good thing, consistent with the intent behind the Bill of Rights.

Of course, this is just me being devil's advocate.

Why do we place so much stock in what the founding fathers wanted? They were men like we have today. They were less educated. Some owned slaves and believed in blood letting for illness. Barbers used to perform surgeries. I would say we should adapt as time moves on.

I would say we should adapt as time moves on.
#50 | Posted by jackass

And there is a mechanism for that, too. Designed to be equally difficult to enact.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out.

Shawn is not wrong, Fair. He just chooses a harsh way to express his point. While he is correct in fact, I'd argue the founding fathers had benevolent intent than he may have implied.

#49 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-26 07:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

HC - thanks for being fair. Your comment is truly fresh air compared to that stale, cynical, morning-breath/gingivitis-
smelling input we always get from Shawn.

I only asked if he was American because he always comes across as the guy who has somehow crashed the party of the millennium and is now just standing around complaining about how shitty and annoying and unbearable it all is.

btw I've always thought Quindlen suffered from UMS (Ugly Mood Swings)

#52

Shawn is one of my favorite posters here. While I admit that he doesn't offer much in the way of prescription, his description is usually accurate.

I can see why you might think him a bit of a buzzkill though.

I think that's part of his point, hence the harshness.

OK, so I DID read the article, thank you very much, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out.

First, Obama has been pulled to the "center" kicking and screaming. He has stated in the past that he doesn't like the private health care system, and that the "public option" is a step in the right direction toward full government control of health care. The show "60 Minutes" just announced something to the tune of $60 billion dollars in the Medicare system is being stolen by people abusing the system. If the government can't operate that system efficiently, how can they govern the entire health care system, which is 1/6 of our economy?

On energy, Obama stated that the under the "cap & trade system", (and this is a direct quote), "energy priced would necessarily skyrocket". Please, someone tell me how that is going to create more jobs!

Obama wants to tax the rich at ever increasing rates, or limit their pay with his new "Pay Czar", but he also wants to create more jobs and get us out of this economic mess we're in, but everything he's doing is having the OPPOSITE effect!

Second, even with all the problems our health care system has, it is still the best health care system in the world! This is proven by the fact that Canadians are coming south to have operations because the waiting lines in Canada are too long. Dignitaries from other countries have come here for surgery, rather than trust the doctors in their own socialized-medicine system. In fact, Canadians are pleading with us not to make our system public because that will leave them with no option as waiting lines here will grow exponentially as well!

Our system is broken, but it's still better than having the government run it. What has the government ever taken control of and run better than the private sector could do on its own? VA hospitals have an error rate over 90%, the Post Office is going bankrupt, as is Medicare, as is Social Security, and the list goes on and on...having the government run our health care is the worst possible solution!

The Founding Fathers wouldn't have it any other way.

They would sit up in their graves if they ever found out how strong the federal government became, thanks to Abe and his war of northern aggression.

-------

Bull fucking shit.

Their first act upon the populace winning the revolution was to try and make washington king. He turned it down because he understood that the people would have blown his fucking head off too.

"Second, even with all the problems our health care system has, it is still the best health care system in the world! This is proven by the fact that Canadians are coming south to have operations because the waiting lines in Canada are too long. Dignitaries from other countries have come here for surgery, rather than trust the doctors in their own socialized-medicine system. In fact, Canadians are pleading with us not to make our system public because that will leave them with no option as waiting lines here will grow exponentially as well!"

Canard alert. Every single Canadian I know has nothing but good to say about their health care system.

And we do NOT have the best health care system in the world. We have high prices, waste, and high mortality rates (often as a result of POOR HANDWRITING, with more deaths than are due to smoking). We have great innovation because of profit and glory. So that's part of the discussion... But best? It is to laugh.

Their first act upon the populace winning the revolution was to try and make washington king. He turned it down because he understood that the people would have blown his fucking head off too.

#56 | Posted by Shawn

WTF does this have to do with what I posted?

I think some on the right think the tree of liberty needs to be burned to the ground in order to save it.

#26 | Posted by danni

Are you screwed up or what? You have confused socalism and capitalism.

BO is inexperienced, immature, and just enjoying the privileges of the office. No achievement so far. A failure. What a waste.

It's such trash as Quindlen and Sarvis who try to make our founding fathers appear less than smart by quoting lies, and false assumptions of what their intentions of how America should be governed by future generations.
If our founding fathers were alive today there wouldn't be an obamanation sitting in the White House, and such evil traitors would never be allowed to hold any political or governing office.
Another thing, if all the logger heads that try to make themselves experts in political knowledge had studied and learned history while in grade school they would know all these things...

"If our founding fathers were alive today there wouldn't be an obamanation sitting in the White House, and such evil traitors would never be allowed to hold any political or governing office."

Traitor? Huh? Evil? Huh? Explain.

There isn't an obamanation, just a President Obama. Just as 10 months ago there was a President Bush. Neither is a traitor; neither is evil. And if our founding fathers were in power today, there wouldn't be Obama in the office because he's BLACK. Of course, my saying that is dumb too, because the founding fathers would be different people if they were alive today.

If you're gonna toss around ideas like "had studied and learned history," maybe you should show some sense of it yourself.

The wide range of lunacy displayed by so-called "conservatives" is confusing.

On the lucid-stupidity end Obama, "has no achievements". On the outright-insane end, "he has done more to make America 'socialistic' than anyone, ever". And the two people saying these opposing talking points think they agree with each other!

I realize that licking authoritarian boots for the last century has left y'all with an experience handicap in the government protest game, but it's hard to consider any of your points valid when you CONSTANTLY contradict yourselves.

Here's a hint, buoys: Pick one line of slander and just keep hammering on it until you can win an election again. Talking out of both sides of your ass doesn't seem to be working so far.

"and such evil traitors "

hahahahahhahah

DR Right is crazy.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

On the lucid-stupidity end Obama, "has no achievements". On the outright-insane end, "he has done more to make America 'socialistic' than anyone, ever". And the two people saying these opposing talking points think they agree with each other!

#63 | Posted by BluSky

1) What were his achevements before he got elected president? He was a nobody lawyer working for Acorn and a nobody senator for the state of IL. 150 days on that job.

2) We are headding for socalism. Look at the banks that he is controling and look at who owns controling interest Chrysler and GM.

3) Our healthcare is soon to be controled by the government.

I guess if you call socalizing the US he does have an achevement.

Wow, looks like Newsweek is taking it in the rear for Obama like so many other wholly-owned government news outlets. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the big government policies of this administration. After fighting off the tax-em-till-they-die British government, the Fathers would not be in a mood for the government to own car companies and health care, and certainly would pass out at the thought of paying a trillion dollars because some companies couldn't behave themselves, especially when many of those companies were in bed with the government officials asking for the bailout. What utter nonsense this article is.

shouldn't this headline be "thank founding fathers"?

President Obama is also like the Founding Fathers in that he claims to be a Christian
And still supports horribly racist policies (abortion--35% of which kills black babies, while less than 16% of the population, 85% of abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods).

Oh, Kirk, now you care about the minorities?

Sniper, would you _please_ learn to spell socialism? It's bad enough you don't know what it means. And great deflection of BluSky's point, btw. Slick. He's right, righties--you can't have it both ways. This president can't be both doing nothing and doing things that destroy the country. Inactivity is activity. Awesome. Orwell would be fascinated.