Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Democrats Rebel Against Compromiser-in-Chief

Go green in 2012

I just turned off CNNI, and the White House reporter quoted a poll saying that 80 percent of voters are mad at both parties. If you want to change things in Washington, you can't vote for either party in 2012. The only way you are going to get their attention is to vote against them! While globalization may crash and burn before the next election, it will be a certainty if either of these neoliberal parties are in the White House or Congress after 2012.

Looking at Obama’s economic advisers in the last election, I anticipated, to some extent, the economic consequences of his election. I voted for Nader! I will vote for the Green Party's candidate in 2012. I can trust them not to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Indeed, they may improve the social safety net.

I am a traditional Democrat, but these people are incompetent. Since I know these people haven't got a clue, I am going to vote Green! I think they have some values. They will do no harm!

Pervis James Casey

Riverside, CA

Jul 25 2011 - 2:25pm

Democrats Rebel Against Compromiser-in-Chief

Change we can no longer believe in

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and did so with great excitement and enthusiasm and thought I was voting for a strong, principled man who would stand up for the things that the Democratic Party believed in. Now, almost three years later, we see a stimulus bill that did nothing for the middle class and poor or to help small businesses but instead went to the bankers and brokerage houses who took the American people’s billions and turned around and paid their employees million-dollar bonuses—for raping and pillaging our economy and bringing it very close to a depression. Instead of receiving bailouts, the people who wreaked havoc with our economy and cost millions of Americans to lose their homes and millions more to lose their jobs should have received lengthy prison sentences. But they paid nothing for the crimes they committed and have their assets, their homes and their millions, while millions wait in lines to accept jobs that can barely pay for the essentials they need to survive.

James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former political advisor made the comment that “Obama could use one of Hillary’s balls” because it seems that Obama has no backbone and caves in whenever he is challenged. As a Democrat I see Obama folding like a cheap suit to the Republicans, and it was a disgrace that the leader of America, a country with 310 million people, has continued to let the leader of Israel, a nation of less than 7 million people, bully and embarass him and continue to make him back down from his requests, even though 100 percent of the aid Israel received is from the US government.

I did not vote for a leader who would continue to cave in to just about everyone who challenges him. James Carville was correct with what he said about Hillary and Obama. I have no doubts whatsoever that Hillary would not cave in to the Republicans. She would hold fast to her principles and beliefs and would compromise when necessary. After all, the American people do not want inflexible leaders and want to see the two parties cooperate with each other to advance the best interests of the American people. However, Mr. President, there is a huge difference between compromise and surrender, and you seem to be doing a lot more of the latter and to be unwilling to be the strong leader we thought we elected who would stand strong for what he believed, protect the poor and the middle class and do what is in the best interests of all Americans. When your opponents, whoever and wherever they are, see you unwilling to stand for anything and willing to give in so easily, then you have already lost—and the sad thing, President Obama, the very sad thing, is that when you lose, so does the American people.

Mark Jeffery Koch

Cherry Hill, NJ

Jul 25 2011 - 1:04pm

Democrats Rebel Against Compromiser-in-Chief

Get to work on this story

The biggest under-reported story is the defection of virturally all of President Obama’s economic advisors: Orzag, Goulsbee, Sommers, Bernstein, Roemer. Sommers and Bernstein have been vocal in stating views that call for jobs programs and warn about restraining spending during this continued economic stagnation. Bernstein writes a fact-based, intelligent, left-leaning blog; Sommers makes public utterances. Orzag tried to peddle slightly right-of-center solutions as a Times columnist before starting his current quest for personal fortune. Not sure about the others.

But really, why did they all bail? Is the White House more interested in political posturing than solving our economic woes?

Someone out there will spill the beans. It a big, important story. I find it amazing that Jared Bernstein in particular gave up a position of influence to join the “blogosphere,” where he is now a powerless outsider. Who is advising the president on economic matters?

We need to get to the bottom of this story.

Asher Fried

Croton-on-Hudson, NY

Jul 25 2011 - 12:15pm