Obama the sell out?

[j_b]

As long as you are willing to let pass from your man what you wouldn't let pass from your opponents, you are of no use to us.

 

You didn't see the Hank Johnson/Guam thread did you? Not only would TTK let it pass he'd makes excuses on their behalf.

 

 

spare us the hypocrisy. Where were you during the Bush years, if not cheering on the looters.

[tvashtarkatena]

Here's how its gonna play out, kiddies:

 

Europe loves GMO labeling, and they're trending towards doing even more of it.

 

The US has long disliked GMO labeling for obvious reasons.

 

There will be lots of histrionics in the press and blogs about a 'trade war' over the issue.

 

The US will back down (duh). The gubment will turn to our agribusinesses and say "Hey, we tried".

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

It's not worth expending an ounce of political capital or emotion over a faux fight that is destined for certain defeat. What, so you can 'hold Obama's feet to the fire?' That's not political advocacy, that's ego.

 

Go work on something where you have a prayer of changing the outcome. This overblown issue is just standard, ambient political friction. All heat, no light.

[j_b]

Here's how its gonna play out, kiddies:

 

Europe loves GMO labeling, and they're trending towards doing even more of it.

 

The US has long disliked GMO labeling for obvious reasons.

 

There will be lots of histrionics in the press and blogs about a 'trade war' over the issue.

 

The US will back down (duh). The gubment will turn to our agribusinesses and say "Hey, we tried".

 

Probably, but you also forgot the part about no GMO labeling here and most anywhere we import foodstuff from.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's not worth expending an ounce of political capital or emotion over a faux fight that is destined for certain defeat. What, so you can 'hold Obama's feet to the fire?' That's not political advocacy, that's ego.

 

Go work on something where you have a prayer of changing the outcome. This overblown issue is just standard, ambient political friction. All heat, no light.

 

BTW, what actual 'work' ARE you guys doing on this issue, besides posting shit in spray?

Edited April 23, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

Keeping the heat on Obama to get rid of corporocracy is a matter of ego?

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, the issue is about restricting labeling in other countries, but whatever.

 

It's very easy to eat healthy, both for yourself and the environment, these days. You don't need GMO labeling to do it.

[j_b]

the broad issue is about fair trade and regulating agri-business, which isn't very likely considering that Obama's appointees were in agribusiness a year ago.

 

It's not about just you and me easily eating healthy, right?

[bradleym]

"The Obama administration is planning on dispatching delegates, on May 3rd, to a WTO meeting to propose changes to a document called the Codex Alimentarius, which is responsible for determining international standards on food labeling. Specifically, these changes would restrict labeling as it pertains to genetically modified genes and organisms. Much more than a giveaway to multinational agribusiness interests, this is an affront to democracy and national sovereignty itself for any number of nations, including our own. In short, if this passes, it would literally become illegal, under international law (in such a way as to trump laws at the national level, via Breton Woods institutions) to inform consumers of genetically modified foodstuffs, and our own FDA and USDA, as well as state and local agencies, would become powerless to protect the interests of American consumers, with regard to our food supply. If you have any interest whatsoever in knowing what's in the food you eat, I would strongly urge you to please have a look at this petition, and consider signing it. And then pass it along to everyone you know, as soon as you can. We have until May 3rd on this"

 

Say it an't so......

 

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/cms/sign/stop_the_sneak_attack/?akid=115.119514.Zgg0mm&rd=1&t=6

 

You finally have a president with intelligence and an appreciation for complexity, who is pragmatic and smart enough to know the difference between what can be done as opposed to what he'd like to do, and you label him a sellout (pun intended) just because some single-issue doorknob describes his pet issue using inflammatory (and probably unjustified) language?

 

Go back under your rock. You are no better than a tea-bagger.

[ivan]

this was a fun read over my snickers bar

[prole]

...who is pragmatic and smart enough to know the difference between what can be done as opposed to what he'd like to do...

 

Funny how "what can be done" and "who can do it" are the same policies instituted by the same personnel that's left America (and the rest of the planet) bobbing in the crapper. Weird.

[bradleym]

...who is pragmatic and smart enough to know the difference between what can be done as opposed to what he'd like to do...

 

Funny how "what can be done" and "who can do it" are the same policies instituted by the same personnel that's left America (and the rest of the planet) bobbing in the crapper. Weird.

 

it may well be that frequently one must work with people who are not one's first choice -- they are the ones 'there', meaning they have context and interest in the work to be done as well as the baggage and ulterior motives. keeps it interesting, i suppose.

 

we should know by now that over-simplification and an expectation of purely good or bad actors doesn't work well. it's not how life is.

[j_b]

there is a big difference in having one's entire cabinet picked out of the corporate world and over-simplifying, which in this case you appear to be doing.

[tvashtarkatena]

What, you want a cabinet picked from the progressive world? Is there a progressive out there who would deign to accept such impure livelihood? Can anyone even find a progressive leader? I know there are plenty of progressive committee chairpersons and facilitators out there, but if a progressive leader could be found, what, exactly, would they be leader of? The blogosphere? Is there a progressive out there who's actually run anything...besides Ben & Jerry that is, but they'd hardly be poster children for the 'eat right' movement.

 

If Congress established an official peanut gallery it might provide a real opportunity for progressives to enter government and begin to effect that revolutionary sea change they yearn for, you know, the crystalline moment when humanity finally wakes up! and sheds the shackles of their former ignorance en masse. That moment when we can finally TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.

Edited April 23, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

...who is pragmatic and smart enough to know the difference between what can be done as opposed to what he'd like to do...

 

Funny how "what can be done" and "who can do it" are the same policies instituted by the same personnel that's left America (and the rest of the planet) bobbing in the crapper. Weird.

 

it may well be that frequently one must work with people who are not one's first choice -- they are the ones 'there', meaning they have context and interest in the work to be done as well as the baggage and ulterior motives. keeps it interesting, i suppose.

 

we should know by now that over-simplification and an expectation of purely good or bad actors doesn't work well. it's not how life is.

 

The point is not to downplay the primacy of politics, process, and struggle but to point out the diminished expectations and cynicism inherent in narrow "pragmatism". When you take that as the starting point, you'll always end with little more than the status quo. If Bush et. al provide any lessons whatsoever it's "go big or go home". Libruls need to get a spine.

[j_b]

come on Tvash be honest, Obama didn't have to pick his entire team (minus a couple notable exceptions) from corporate institutions that threaten our very democracy. There are for example plenty of competent progressive economists out there, some of whom even got Nobel prizes.

[bradleym]

...who is pragmatic and smart enough to know the difference between what can be done as opposed to what he'd like to do...

 

Funny how "what can be done" and "who can do it" are the same policies instituted by the same personnel that's left America (and the rest of the planet) bobbing in the crapper. Weird.

 

it may well be that frequently one must work with people who are not one's first choice -- they are the ones 'there', meaning they have context and interest in the work to be done as well as the baggage and ulterior motives. keeps it interesting, i suppose.

 

we should know by now that over-simplification and an expectation of purely good or bad actors doesn't work well. it's not how life is.

 

The point is not to downplay the primacy of politics, process, and struggle but to point out the diminished expectations and cynicism inherent in narrow "pragmatism". When you take that as the starting point, you'll always end with little more than the status quo. If Bush et. al provide any lessons whatsoever it's "go big or go home". Libruls need to get a spine.

 

I don't know, life seems to me to be a constant lesson in diminishing those expectations, but it doesn't necessarily lead directly to cynicism or an awful status quo. I work in the corporate world (sorry j_b), and have often been thrown together with people I don't really like or trust, whose motives I am not too sure about, yet we have to get something productive done. And we do. We figure out how to work together, in spite of our dislike or distrust -- the end product may not be perfect, and indeed it may be spoiled in part by our differences, if that is the way you want to look at it. But it is headed in the right direction.

 

I see the path for Obama in much the same light. He's surrounded by all these actors that he either didn't choose, or wasn't terribly happy about choosing, or who are flawed in some way but bring something Obama thinks he needs, yet he still has to get something done. And he is. It isn't perfect, and my inner idealist wishes terribly that things could be different, but to my way of thinking it represents progress.

 

Will that assemblage of characters always get it right? No. Do they sometimes make asses of themselves? Yes. Do I believe their motives to be pure? Absolutely not, whose are? Can I conclude from anything that has happened that Obama is a sellout? Yawn.

[j_b]

The point is not to downplay the primacy of politics, process, and struggle but to point out the diminished expectations and cynicism inherent in narrow "pragmatism". When you take that as the starting point, you'll always end with little more than the status quo. If Bush et. al provide any lessons whatsoever it's "go big or go home". Libruls need to get a spine.

 

I wish a spine was all that was needed but considering we have seen similar scenari with Carter and Clinton, it's hard to believe they haven't learned the cost of neoliberalism.

[j_b]

I work in the corporate world (sorry j_b)

 

Don't misunderstand what I mean. There are plenty of very fine and bright people in the corporate world, and they'd be fine in government as long as they don't condone corporatism, which is doubtful it is the case for Obama's cabinet picks.

 

Can I conclude from anything that has happened that Obama is a sellout? Yawn.

 

hopefully you can tell whether they significantly differ from Bush's policies ...

[G-spotter]

[bradleym]

Can I conclude from anything that has happened that Obama is a sellout? Yawn.

 

hopefully you can tell whether they significantly differ from Bush's policies ...

 

IMHO the sum of activity undertaken by the Obama administration (from the legislative agenda, to executive orders, to diplomatic initiatives, to supreme court nominations, etc.) indicates a significant, and very, very welcome difference from Bush policies.

 

Nonetheless, there are many currents in place that are impossible to divert quickly, or it would be disastrous to try, and so it is a step-wise progression (sometimes a step back too). E.g. guantanamo, afghanistan, energy policy, etc.

 

Getting stuff done at that level is enormously complex and subject to an infinity of tradeoffs, and a character like the president is dependent on many people, each of whom is subject to a range of motivations, allegiances, changes of heart and shifting calculation of best interest. Even idealism. I'm talking about cabinet secretaries, low-level functionaries, senators, everybody.

 

For example, Geithner isn't everyone's favorite fellow, and is often cited as proof that the insiders still rule and that nothing has changed. That may be, but I'm sure the decision to appoint him was indeed conflicted and subject to a subtle calculus involving his background, his connections, what he knows, how he gets along with key players, etc. And much of it was perhaps not in his favor. He is sort of compromised by his GS links, he does have some trouble with his sums, but at the end of the day it was a calculated risk on Obama's part to go with him because Obama judged that Geithner possesses something that outweighed the negatives. Obama must also have judged that he could manage the swirl of motivations and allegiances. Nothing is a sure bet, especially with stakes the way they are.

 

I don't know why I'm gabbling so much today. I don't have any simple answers.

[j_b]

dude, you have no idea how mean a rooster can be. I'd run too. LOLz (hi Porter)

[Stonehead]

And BTW, you can't 'sell out' in politics. That's kind of like calling an escort a slut.

 

A whore does it for money. A slut gives it away for free.