December 15, 2011

Is Obama Incompetent, Cowardly, or Malevolent?

an great sample of logical thinking by Lucien Maverick

"I previously had written a post where I had asked the question of if Obama was malevolent, or merely incompetent. I posed the idea that there are three liberal narratives that currently go around about Obama. The first is that he wants to do things, but the Republicans block him at every turn. I immediately discarded this option, because there was too much evidence against it. The second is that he never wanted to do any of what he said, and that he wanted to continue the Bush Doctrine. The third is that he did want to make good on his promises to the American people, but was simply too cowardly to stand his ground. Recent events have proven that neither the first nor the third narrative are correct. The second is the correct one. Obama is a malevolent force working against the American people.

The first major indication that Obama was playing dumb and really working to continue the Bush Doctrine was the acceptance speech that he gave when he received his Nobel Peace Prize. He basically said that it doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks, America can do whatever the hell it wants, without consequences. That was the first major hint.

The next was when he failed to live up to his mandate of closing Guantanamo, instead, he pretty much franchised it. That was the next big hint that something was very off about his character. Next up came the Bush Tax Cuts. Obama could very easily have stood his ground, and said that he would veto anything that they put on his desk. He could have told them that there would be no fly with this. Instead, he gave the Republicans more than even Bush II had given them. Bush hadn’t been so generous, so that gives kind of a statement of where Obama stands.

The next big clue was the Debt Ceiling debate. This was another instance where Obama could have stood his ground, because everybody who is politically aware knew that the Republicans were bluffing. There was no way that they were going to not raise the debt ceiling. With the AARP breathing down their necks and the old people saying “You damn well better get me my Social Security!”, we all knew that it was a bluff. Again, he gave them everything that they want and more. He barely even hid it.
"


[...]

"With the 2012 elections just around the corner, the big question becomes – what should we do? The liberals like me really have nobody to turn to. All of the Republican candidates are jokes. Newt Gingrich is an idiot. Michele Bachmann is insane. Rick Perry is a bigot. Rick Santorum is a dumbass and a bigot. Mitt Romney is the Republican version of Obama (except he’s open about his malevolence, whereas Obama is trying to mask his as 'change')."


There is more in over at the original post, but this excellent set of paragraphs above is what really struck a chord with me. Laying out the history of betrayal of the base, it really seems to me that the Democratic Loyal has a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.

I'd also like to point out that Liberals and Progressives DO have a place to go, where they can vote for somebody who is neither evil, nor insane.

Dr. Jill Stien is running for President with the Green party.



She's working to get ballot access in all 50 states, and thanks to increasingly exclusive and arcane ballot access laws put in place by both the GOP and DNC to keep third party candidates from challenging their duopoly, we are going to need to work extra hard to make sure that she is an option that we can vote for in 2012.

So that means we need to start working on it NOW.