Obama Should Resign and Let Biden Take Over

20 posts / 0 new

Since it is clear that the gridlock is based on some kind of personal dislike for this President. And since the President seems unwilling or unable to turn this obvious bad faith into political capital for truly liberal causes, how bout letting Biden have a crack at it?? I think it's clear that, of the two, he'd be the most like FDR.

Obama should just admit that he doesn't want personal hate for him to interfere with getting this country back on its economic feet and just step down.

loganonenation's picture
loganonenation
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

No, Obama should stop trying to be a post partumist, or partisan, read some FDR speeches, and go "welcome their anger" on them. Use the bully pulpit, and push our ideas. Lead.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Get rid of Obama & Biden and get Ron Paul elected President.

NO MORE GLOBALIST PRESIDENTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lon-Paul's picture
Lon-Paul
Joined:
Jul. 26, 2011 1:12 pm

Fortunately Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of getting elected.

Unfortunately the system will continue with the two party oligarchy reigning supreme.....

Of course replacing Obama with Biden would make the banks and the credit card compaines happy... even happier than they already are, and that's sayin' something.....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

i am not in favor of a resignation but for heavens sake mr.president can you please be a tougher negotiator at the very least.you have the bully pulpit so use it and dont worry about getting permission from the damn R-CONS!!!

kevin baggese's picture
kevin baggese
Joined:
Aug. 4, 2011 3:15 pm

Obama should resign because he's a republican that's pretending to be a democrat. Look at what he agreed to on the debt ceiling issue -- budget cuts to a long list of programs than any progressive supports and NO tax increases on the wealthy. That's pure Ronald Reagan republicanism. The air pollution standards decision finally convinced me. At every turn, he's given the republicans what they want. I have YET to see him stand up and truly push for ANYTHING progressive.

I will NOT vote for Obama again. I don't vote for republicans.

Junicon's picture
Junicon
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Instead of doing the Duopoly Pout, accept the fact that our electoral system is a stacked deck and that giving the GOPimps all the power again will not turn out any better than it has in the past. Do the other things that matter because elections are compromised and corrupted, but do not ignore how they can be used against us. That is why I will be voting for Obama and any Democrat instead of letting the Disloyal Opposition take over.

But your anger and analysis are precious resources, and instead of venting about Obama, apply them to doing whatever truly progressive actions you can commit to. Even were you totally correct about Obama being Reagan, remember that Reagan could not be a Republican today.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I feel its more like some of us are the lunatics in The King of Hearts who leave the asylum when the town is abandoned as the enemy approaches in WWI, only to return to the asylum after the two armies kill themselves off and the townspeople return to reclaim the town, whereupon they reward the remaining standing "warrior", Alan Bates for "saving" them. To me the asylum is nature, and I'm with Alan Bates at the end, who was shown the insanity of sanity by the lunatics, not by the soldiers lying all over the place, nor the townspeople pretending to go on living normally.

"The joke has lasted long enough..."

The King of Hearts - Final Part

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

DRC, from a practical standpoint you're undoubtedly correct. As bad as Obama is, any of the republicans (including Ron Paul) would be infinitely worse.

I suppose it comes down to the question of whether one should vote on the basis of pragmatic considerations or on principle. From a practical standpoint, any liberal should vote for Obama because he's less destructive than any of the republicans and he's the only chance we have to avoid a president that's even more of a conservative than he is.

The question is this: is there a point at which one should vote on PRINCIPLE, even if it's not the best vote one could cast from a practical standpoint? Is there a point at which the democratic candidate is so far to the right that a man (or woman) of principle should vote for a legitimate liberal that has absolutely no chance of winning?

Edit: for the record I am doing everything I can to promote liberal causes. The sad irony is that decades of republican policies have made my life so miserable that I'm too busy scrambling to take care of my family to be very active in politics.

Junicon's picture
Junicon
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Junicon:

DRC, from a practical standpoint you're undoubtedly correct. As bad as Obama is, any of the republicans (including Ron Paul) would be infinitely worse.

I am not saying this to play the Devil's advocate but I really wonder if Obama is really the best choice for us DESPITE only lunatics running in the Republican field.

He has singlehandedly harmed things that a Republican can never get away with like Medicare and Social Security. If we had a Democrat controlled House and Senate with ANY Repugnican preseident, talks about destroying Medicare and Social Security would never fly.

By Obama "claiming" to be a Democrat and the people's champion, the destruction of the social safety net along with all the pro-corporate legislation passed like 'Obamacare' become legitimized. The thinking goes something like, "If a Dem thinks that cuts are needed to social programs, especially sacred cows like Medicare and Social Security, they surely must need to be.", whereas it owuld never fly with a Repugnican prez- at least for the time being.

Obama has accoplished more for the right wing corporatists and can continue to do so under the guise of being a Dem and the empty rhetoric he uses to "support" labor and the common citizen.

This being said, I would NOT want to see these loons from the right like Perry or Bachman sitting in the White House but I think that none of them would not be able to start the destruction of the social safety net payed for by workers like myself where Obama doing the same thing can lend legitimacy to it.

More and more Obama is looking like the Manchurian candidate for the corporatist Repugnican pieces of shit.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am
Quote Junicon:

DRC, from a practical standpoint you're undoubtedly correct. As bad as Obama is, any of the republicans (including Ron Paul) would be infinitely worse.

I suppose it comes down to the question of whether one should vote on the basis of pragmatic considerations or on principle. From a practical standpoint, any liberal should vote for Obama because he's less destructive than any of the republicans and he's the only chance we have to avoid a president that's even more of a conservative than he is.

The question is this: is there a point at which one should vote on PRINCIPLE, even if it's not the best vote one could cast from a practical standpoint? Is there a point at which the democratic candidate is so far to the right that a man (or woman) of principle should vote for a legitimate liberal that has absolutely no chance of winning?

Edit: for the record I am doing everything I can to promote liberal causes. The sad irony is that decades of republican policies have made my life so miserable that I'm too busy scrambling to take care of my family to be very active in politics.

Long ago I went with principle. But to be so bold as to answer your question addressed to DRC, and I paraphrase: is there a point where practical and principle break irrevocably and a decision must be made for one or the other? Can anyone actually be the one who knows things of that nature? I think that claim would be a claim for reason. We've all got human gifts to work with. In the modern world "reason" has been made into a kind of god that is supposed to win out over heart, which is where my principles reside. The appeal to the practical using logic and reason is an appeal to that god, in my own cosmology.

As a gift of the liberal principles of reason from the enlightenment, and folks like Descartes, It now rules our culture, even though people may not want to include the "neoliberalism" that's resulted around the globe as a legacy of that gift. The god of reason without heart often ends up with becoming autocratic by choosing a particular line of reason to place at the top of a hierarchy. It's other option is respecting equally everyone's reason, whereupon the dog eat dog rules of the selfish reasoners will want their way. And so you get to autocracy by that route.

When the Virtue of Selfishness is the reason some employ, the virtuies of reciprocity are either forced into a war with the selfish, thus becoming brutish in form like the selfish and losing their heart of generousity, empathy and humanity, or they are overwhelmed and forced to choose from an ever dwindling set of options so that an arch conservative Democrat is better than the other choice, as we have witnessed, much as "sages" like Machiavelli recognized it would when he wrote The Prince.

Thus reason by itself engenders and produces contradiction. I trust that DRC is doing his best to use reason to work with that contradiction and I admire his perspicacity. But I personally choose differently. My intuition tells me to transcend that contradiction. To do that I often find myself on the outside of those employing reason. So while reason rules the culture I rebel and it does not rule me. It's not an easy place to be.

Nor do I believe there is a god to tell me what to do. There are just these forms that people have made into gods, and they are many in the mythologies of numerous groups, like the Greeks, the Romans, the Norse.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

When I have voted on "principle," it has been when my individual protest vote did not change anything for the worse. Except when I regret having done so. And that is why I avoid making other people pay for my acts of principle. The Democrats will provide more money to poor people than the GOPimps ever will. That will save lives. It makes the elections something more than meaningless.

I also appreciate that we are being worn down. That is the point of the war on the Middle Class, not just to steal our money but to crush our spirits so we give up on democracy. My point was not to squander the anger and passion on useless venting or vain protest. Put it to work while you stay smart about the small stuff as well.

Transcending the system consciously is important. Recognizing it for what it is, however, includes seeing what it is and not just what it is not. Escaping the system is necessary for some, so they should go humbly and not trash those who stick around. We will appreciate anything they can do on the outside or from unexpected sources.

To call this a culture of Reason is to engage in a wry joke. Reason may be established, but ideology rules. "Reason" becomes the logic used by ideology to dress its narrative. Who is "reasonable" in DC? I don't see much of it. So the struggle is to keep it real and not get lost in the pathology of the system. It is the only way to work with the system without becoming subsumed by it.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Transcending the system consciously is important. Recognizing it for what it is, however, includes seeing what it is and not just what it is not. Escaping the system is necessary for some, so they should go humbly and not trash those who stick around. We will appreciate anything they can do on the outside or from unexpected sources.

Prophecy and vision comes from the outside, not inside. Seeing it for what it is also comes from the liminalities, the boundaries, the scary places, not from engagement with communitas, which is by necessity an attempt to buttress what is by reason.

Quote DRC:

To call this a culture of Reason is to engage in a wry joke. Reason may be established, but ideology rules. "Reason" becomes the logic used by ideology to dress its narrative. Who is "reasonable" in DC? I don't see much of it. So the struggle is to keep it real and not get lost in the pathology of the system. It is the only way to work with the system without becoming subsumed by it.

Your use of reason there is by its nature rhetorical and pejorative. I note that ideology is a child of reason, not something different from it. It is reason crystalized and formed into a supposed something but really nothing when compared to revelation.

We, as individuals, at least the vast majority of us do not struggle in Washington. We vote where we live, while "hacking our lives out of the wilderness and bearing our children along the way" (a phrase borrowed from 'Last of the Mohicans', 1992 version). Unfortunately our wilderness now is nature destroyed, a whole new challenge. What we vote for has little to do with keeping Washington real. Corporations have that in hand now. And they have it in hand through their control of the voice of reason. That is what is.

If that is what is, then pretending to be somehow engaged with that spectacle and developing abstract arguments outside what is going on there is to be subsumed by the abstraction of it along with the ideologies being bandied about and defended to the death by those who get people to vote for them. Whereas the reality of it has a different bearing upon us, much like that described by people such as Sheldon Wolin who recognizes the larger system as an actor itself and us its unwilling subjects, as it is an inverted totalitarianism we can barely understand because we have so little information and actual experience of how it works to work with. The question raised in the 'Last of the Mohicans' is, do we want to live under this inverted totalitarianism as a "by your leave?"

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

i figured it out 100%

we CANT count on Obama - as long as the R-party has the HOUSEif we get the house back - he will have NO excuses ...only that he was never really that dedicatedi liked BIDEN better because he did NOT have the racial issue ( its not me ..its the USA on average )so i figured he could get stuff done ( this observation seems to have borne out ... )

- and really - this USA is about to fail if we have a SPLIT governmentit would not matter ... even if the R-party takes the presidentwithout the house AND senatenothing is getting donewe need to be ALL on one sideso we can get stuff done - even Germany and China dotn have this division
and who likes the division - big moneythey are happy with the status quo ( confusion , bribery )
SO
why talk about OBAMA getting re-electedits the HOUSE we needand if OBAMA does not get that message soonand start asking us to turn the house aroundi will KNOW what he has been up to 100%selling out
so its ALL or NONE this timewe NEED the house backif we fail - all is lost
can we start with that message ??take the house back ...
joseph in los angeles

wigsalon's picture
wigsalon
Joined:
Sep. 6, 2011 5:35 pm

i sort of agree

thats why i liked biden over obama

this country was never really ready for the mixed breed leader

its a shame - but its true

we have a divided country - almost like a civil war (again)

but with words ..not guns ..and its killing us

and yes, the big money KNEW this ahead of time ... they knew we would spinour wheels for 4-8 years

and they would get richer by lobbying for profits

wigsalon's picture
wigsalon
Joined:
Sep. 6, 2011 5:35 pm

Unless there is an unlikely economic miracle in the next 9 months or so, Obama and the Dems will get soundly thrashed. I hope and pray that Little O pulls an LBJ and declines to run again. If you look at a 2008 electoral map, you'll see many states that went for O where he would almost certainly lose today (NV, VA, NC, FL, CO). PA would also be really tough. Add 10 more electoral votes to this total and you have a Rep win. And it could be MUCH worse given the Rep's efforts to surpress the vote and how thoroughly Little O has alienated much of his base. Run Hillary, RUN!!

forcejb's picture
forcejb
Joined:
Sep. 7, 2011 10:39 am

I still want Al Gore as my President. Heck, many other countries would probably finance his campaign because it's in their best interest and would be best for the environment that all human depend upon. Hillary can be Vice.

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Either would be a fine pres, but I think Hillary is a much better candidate. Al is too pedantic (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz). Let him be head of the EPA. But the main point is the ship is goin' down if BHO is at the helm. You'd see an historically low voter turnout.

forcejb's picture
forcejb
Joined:
Sep. 7, 2011 10:39 am
Quote Dominic C:
Quote Junicon:

DRC, from a practical standpoint you're undoubtedly correct. As bad as Obama is, any of the republicans (including Ron Paul) would be infinitely worse.

I am not saying this to play the Devil's advocate but I really wonder if Obama is really the best choice for us DESPITE only lunatics running in the Republican field.

He has singlehandedly harmed things that a Republican can never get away with like Medicare and Social Security. If we had a Democrat controlled House and Senate with ANY Repugnican preseident, talks about destroying Medicare and Social Security would never fly.

By Obama "claiming" to be a Democrat and the people's champion, the destruction of the social safety net along with all the pro-corporate legislation passed like 'Obamacare' become legitimized. The thinking goes something like, "If a Dem thinks that cuts are needed to social programs, especially sacred cows like Medicare and Social Security, they surely must need to be.", whereas it owuld never fly with a Repugnican prez- at least for the time being.

Obama has accoplished more for the right wing corporatists and can continue to do so under the guise of being a Dem and the empty rhetoric he uses to "support" labor and the common citizen.

This being said, I would NOT want to see these loons from the right like Perry or Bachman sitting in the White House but I think that none of them would not be able to start the destruction of the social safety net payed for by workers like myself where Obama doing the same thing can lend legitimacy to it.

More and more Obama is looking like the Manchurian candidate for the corporatist Repugnican pieces of shit.

This is exactly my point. Furthermore, Obama is currently being painted by the media as a liberal Democrat (even a socialist!) enacting liberal policies and failing, though he is in a fact a center-right Reaganite presiding over Bush's third term. His presidency will go down in the manufactured history books as the final demonstration of why liberalism and Keynesian economics are failed philosophies. Every day he is in office, he is doing incalculable damage to both the liberal and the Democratic brand.

loganonenation's picture
loganonenation
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

@Dominic C: You have it right, and I think our public discourse has been so "dumbed down" by infotainment that most Americans would be hard-pressed to define a socialist idea or agenda, or contrast it from communism nor facism for that matter. To save our middle class and what's left of our world leadership, we desperately need some real leftist, socialist, Econ 101 policies, a la The New Deal. We need Democrats who will fight for Americans and "welcome the hatred" of the facsist right and its media machine, despite any political fallout.

I am going to start a new thread on this, but I wonder if we could steal a page from the Teabaggers and really help the nation and the president by... supporting a primary challenge for the presidency from the left! Hear me out:

This strategy has worked for the baggers and it will work for us. A primary challenge from the left will do the following:

- Keep a debate between real leftist ideology and post-candidate-Obama, who is right-of-Reagan and left-of-Mussolini, in the news. The right is onto something here - All controversy is free publicity. This will also highlight the contrast and absurdity of our public validation of failed ideas like supply-side economics in the general.

- If the primary challenge is a credible threat, we he wins the primary, it will give President Obama the political cover and will to move to the left and be the FDR-like figure we need him to be.

- It will NOT dilute the general election numbers with a third-party that might give us a terrifying Perry presidency despite a liberal majority of voters.

The right does this because it works... and it's moved the focus of our national debate very far to the right. Let's do it to move things to the left and empower the President to be a real liberal. The challenge has to be from a credible threat though. I am thinking Nancy Pelosi, but open to suggestions.

Boobahdaddy
Joined:
Sep. 9, 2011 11:35 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system