Roberto Unger was a professor at the Harvard Law School and taught Barack Obama. A Brazilian politician in his own right, Unger also served Obama as an adviser during the 2008 campaign. But the Daily Mail in the UK reported on Sunday that Unger is not happy with the results thus far of Obama′s first term in office. In a You-Tube video Unger has posted, ′Beyond Obama′, he encourages Obama to be defeated in 2012 for not fulfilling the Progressive agenda enough. Unger is not the first Liberal-Progressive to be critical of Obama for failing to push more Socialism down America′s throat. But once again, we are seeing major cracks within the core of Obama supporters, a situation that is not good with the November elections less than six months away.
Earlier critics of Obama whined about how his stimulus package in 2009 was not large enough. That instead of wasting a mere $800 Billion to prop up state and local public employee unions, Obama should have funneled two or three trillion dollars to them. After all, we just learned last week that public employee pensions funds are short about $3.9 Trillion right now, and that number is expected to grow to $5 Trillion in red ink very soon.
Then there was the Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obama-Care. Critics on the Far-Left were unhappy that Obama did not go far enough to creating a national single-payer program. During the 2007-08 campaign, Obama spoke to groups like the various teacher unions and his pals at SEIU, cautioning them at the time that he did not think that he could pull off a single-payer plan immediately. Some analysts do suggest that Obama-Care is designed to fail in such a way that within ten years it will force a switch to a single-payer plan.
Roberto Unger is in the same camp as these critics. He is unhappy that Barack Obama bailed out the Wall Street banks and large corporations. Unger is upset that Obama has not done enough for the poor and middle classes, especially home owners who still face mortgage foreclosures. So Roberto Unger, who once taught Obama on how to reinvent democracy at the Harvard Law School, who was a regular adviser to Obama during the 2008 campaign, has come to the conclusion that the best outcome for the Progressive movement is for Obama to be defeated in 2012. This will force the Progressives to find a better leader. His You Tube video is entitled ′Beyond Obama.′ As Homer Simpson once said, ″I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.″ Hah-Hah!










June 18th, 2012 at 7:01 am
Chalk me up as one of those liberals who is disappointed in many many many aspects of Obama’s presidency. We were promised change, we got Bush part III with some notable exceptions (which is why I guess I have to vote for him again. Sigh.)
We need a real liberal candidate.
June 18th, 2012 at 7:20 am
Me, try Pelosi for POTUS. Please.
June 18th, 2012 at 7:55 am
What is equal anyway? There will always be someone richer, smarter and prettier then me. I better get use to it or get off the planet. In general, I am grateful for my life and I thank God for it. Socialists are a bunch of jealous, angry and lazy people who work for some government some where and recent those who create and take risks they are too afraid to do. Socialists are miserable and want to impose that misery on every human on the planet.
June 18th, 2012 at 8:56 am
It kills me on this site, if you are not in lockstep with some extreme right wing view you can only be one thing.
A “socialist”.
The certitutde in which people voice their opinions is something I have never been presented with before.
A RINO? Socialist in a better suit.
Indpendent or moderate? Obsructionist
Democrat? Impotent, elitist, Godless and condescending person who is certainly employed by either the government (or more likely unemployed and living off of the sweat or Republicans).
Liberal? Immoral whore
Liberal who voices an opinion? Communist
June 18th, 2012 at 9:04 am
“socialist” isnt a dirty word, buzz. It is the political philosophy followed by Barack Obama and a majority of leftists in America, particularly the kind who are passionate enough to go about writing comments on websites. Know Thyself.
June 18th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Liddle Mini Me Says :
‘ Chalk me up as one of those liberals who is disappointed in . . . a real liberal candidate. ‘
Worry Naught, Lib Liver Lips, you’re already ‘Chalked Up’ as a World Class Touchhole.
June 18th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Please indicate one thing I have ever said that could be construed as socialist.
I am a staunch capitalist, business owner of over 35 years that can only be described as selfish and pragmatic.
I rarely advocate social programs because I am kind hearted, but instead because it is a wise business decision.
As I have said before, it is as if people think that if they eliminate the safety net, the underclass will move. Umm. to where?
I don’t care about other people’s personal decisions on what are considered “morality” issues and I don’t favor the gutting of social programs for no other reason than because it is good business in these economic times.
You trim programs when the economy is good, you invest and prop up in lean times.
Money is historically affordable right now and to make attempts to quickly balance the books within a short period of time is the corporate philosophy employed by owners of lemonade stands.
I also find it amusing that many austerity issues find there way to programs that are financially inconsequential.
Yeah, let’s save the economy and shut down Planned Parenthood. Nothing but excuses to lay the hammer on programs they find morally reprehensible under the guise of austerity.
Kinda like the issue in Michigan right now (and in other fashions in many other states) where a Republican State legislature is passing measures that require abortion clinics to have cost-prohibitive medical malpractice insurance, additional licensure and other regulations that are designed to end run the laws of the land. No probes as of yet.
When two female legislators voiced their opinion they were prevented from speaking again because they had the temerity to say vagina. I was under the impression that the state legislature was comprised of adults.
Hey, want to save some money? Why don’t we eliminate the tax exempt status of churches and funding for faith based initiatives?
Hey there, I’m happy to help out those that are less fortunate, but first they have to hear my “message”, either overtly or subliminally.
No, socialist isn’t a dirty word, but it certainly isn’t utilized correctly
in these environs.
As I was illustrating, anyone not in lockstep is referred to as a socialist.
Yup, no shades of gray, you are either with us or against us.
According to the current standards, if Reagan was around today he would be branded a RINO, and therefore a socialist.
June 18th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Buzz!
“As I have said before, it is as if people think that if they eliminate the safety net, the underclass will move. Umm. to where?”
“underclass” is a socialist concept. Normal people don’t think that way. What will happen is they will move into the workforce, many of them. Local charity and particularly the churches you so loathe will help others, just like the old days. A few will be left behind, (for example unable to push their silly wheelchairs over sidewalk curbs, and that’s too bad, but don’t get me started on the immoral handicapped lobby).
“You trim programs when the economy is good, you invest and prop up in lean times.”
Yes! things should work that way but they don’t because government is inherently irresponsible. Government is incentivized to increase spending in good times, so they do (a lot) and now you want to increase spending in bad times too. Can’t do both which is why there should be a balanced budget amendment (but Obama would ignore it anyway.)
“attempts to quickly balance the books within a short period of time is the corporate philosophy employed by owners of lemonade stands.”
Well yes, and it is also the philosophy used by every other company because they are accountable to shareholders, just like our government should be (but isnt) accountable to voters very much. You don’t really understand how businesses work do you? Amuses me that the kids at the lemonade stand know more!
“eliminate the tax exempt status of churches and funding for faith based initiatives?”
I’m down with that idea, and every other form of taxation policy that is meant for do-gooding social engineering. So the bargain will be that everyone pays the same low income tax rate no matter level of income. Far better if government would just shut up, collect the revenues it needs and stop picking winners and losers.
And yes, you are a socialist but that is legal.
June 18th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Ya see, buzz? They call people like us “socialists” who are not only capitalists but “job creators”.
Most of them don’t understand what socialism is.
Some of them do, and misuse the word anyway.
For those who don’t, “socialist” is just an empty synonym for “devil” or “bad guy” or “the other”. It is the same to them as “un-American” (though they have only an infantile understanding of what being an “American” entails) or “fascist” or “marxist” or “liberal” or “moonbat” or whatever…. It’s all the same to them, and the depth of that conception is startling and shallow, which a 2 minute conversation quickly reveals. For these people, it’s just some invective to spit through gritted teeth.
For the few who DO actually know what socialism and marxism and fascism etc, is, they are just cynically and deliberately misleading the first group to get them to lockstep vote against their own interests.
I think most of the people who run this site are in the first group, but there are some like Andrew Z and Arriba who I believe DO know the difference. The really sad part is that in Andrew’s case, he’s so full of fanboism that he not only votes against his own interests, but he fancies himself one of the elites, so thinks he’s doing himself a favor by trying to entice others to the same world view. He’s an insignificant pawn of course. Luckily, no one takes him seriously. But he sure saves the actual elites a lot of money. I guess you get what you pay for.
June 18th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
@ME
Aww, thats nice. I’m sure your feelings for Andrew will convince everyone to vote for Obama.
One of these days when you’re able to show me where in the Tora it condones homosexuality and abortion maybe liberal Jews like you will make sense
June 19th, 2012 at 2:13 am
One of these days when you’re able to show me where in the Tora it condones homosexuality and abortion maybe liberal Jews like you will make sense
First of all I could give a rats ass what the “Tora” condones. The Torah prohibits tattoos (“You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.“, Lev. 19:28) eating shellfish (“But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.”, Lev. 11:10), wearing any kind of blended fabric (“You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”, Lev 19:19), and a bunch of other crap I couldn’t care less about.
Jesus, incidentally, never mentions homosexuality at all.
As for abortion according to Talmudic law and other Biblical interpretation over 2000 years of Jewry, abortion is specifically *not* considered akin to murder. An embryo is *not* considered a person. In fact, traditional Judiasm says an embryo is literally “water” during the first 40 days of pregnancy. It is not considered anything close to a person.
Whereas risking the life of a mother is always prohibited. The Mishna says explicitly– and even the most religious, orthodox Jews in the world agree– that abortion is mandated ALWAYS when the mother’s life is at risk. That’s right- the most extreme conservative, orthadox, religious Jew will DEMAND an abortion without question if the mother’s life is in danger.
And that’s the extremely religious. The majority of Jews are pro-choice, by a wide margin. Of any large western religion I can’t think of ANY with a more traditionally politically “liberal” and feminist view of abortion than Judaism.
So in other words, sit the F down, shut your ignorant yap, and don’t try to lecture me on my own ethnic traditions, douche.
June 19th, 2012 at 5:19 am
@ ‘Me’:
“Fanboism?” I’m not sure if fanboyism is something you can tag me with. I’ve made it very clear many times before that my personal political tendencies swing to that which is known as Voluntaryism. Sort of a middle ground between Libertarians and anarchists.
As for this whole thread about Socialists being a bad term, it reminds me of a story that Hayek used to tell. He was hosting a conference in Switzerland of the cream of free market economists in the late 1940s. Milton Friedman and just about every non-Keynesian was in attendance. During one discussion, Ludwig von Mises (whom we love to pieces) stood up and yelled, “YOU’RE ALL A BUNCH OF SOCIALISTS!” I just think that’s hilarious!
June 19th, 2012 at 9:00 am
Me, Jesus defined marriage between a man and a woman as the only place where intercourse should happen. Please stop repeating the same errors, attempting to deconstruct truth to support your opinions.
June 19th, 2012 at 9:19 am
It’s the economy, stupid. What are the silly liberals on this thread talking about social issues for?
June 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Me, Jesus defined marriage between a man and a woman as the only place where intercourse should happen. Please stop repeating the same errors, attempting to deconstruct truth to support your opinions.
[Citation needed]
June 19th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Hmm, seven hours later and no [citation].
Because there’s nothing to cite.
June 20th, 2012 at 4:44 am
Wow, this took me all of two seconds to Google:
Matthew 19: Verses 4-6:
“And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”
June 20th, 2012 at 9:41 am
ME;
“Jesus, incidentally, never mentions homosexuality at all.”
Jews dont recognize Jesus as the son of God…idiot.
The Tora is relevant only to the pre-Jesus era in which Jews worshiped God long before Jesus and the new testament.
knumbskull.
Since you dont give a rats ass but claim you’re Jewish I can conclude that liberal Jews are hypocritical oxymorons
June 20th, 2012 at 9:56 am
ME;
“So in other words, sit the F down, shut your ignorant yap, and don’t try to lecture me on my own ethnic traditions, douche.”
Fck you ass hole.
My father was Jewish and has no idea how old he is or who his parents were and taught me more about Judaism at age 12 than you seem to know right now.
Its all very simple, you’re a lying sack of sht making everything up as you along or play your silly fcking semantics.
On abortion the, risk of the mother is the only exception to the rule.
You fckin slobs us it as pure contraceptive and promiscuity
Gay Jewish Bigot and Liberal…
…man, you’re a fckin blubbering mess
June 20th, 2012 at 10:04 am
ME;
“The majority of Jews are pro-choice, by a wide margin.”
Only in your hood b1tch and certainly not in Israel
June 20th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Don’t expect Me to comprehend rational thoughts.
Liberals are by definition not logical beings, so you have to find a different way to get thru to them.
June 20th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Thank you, Andy, for posting the reference of Jesus’ words about marriage. After all, it’s recited over and over in most weddings. Here’s another:
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” – Mark 10:7-9
June 20th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Maybe I just don’t get it, but how does that citation answer Me’s statement about intercourse?
June 20th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Liberals are by definition not logical being
Why do you think most of the most intelligent scientists in the world are liberals?
Also, since religion has been brought up in this thread:
Religion is almost be definition the epitome of illogical rational. Sure, there are plenty of religious liberals, but percentage-wise there are far more religious wing-nuts. I know tons of liberal atheists and almost no wing-nut atheists, hell, why do you think the American-Taliban (ie Republicans) hate women and homosexuals so much?
You guys proudly flaunt your bibles, which are chock-full of illogical teachings and such. Burning bushes that talk, people that live hundreds of years, all sorts of BS and you guys drink it up like children sucking down Kool-Aid on a hot summer day. Oh, right – these are METAPHORS or something, and the old testament doesn’t count anymore (mulligan?) finally you guys have started to back-pedal because most of what’s in that book is so patently stupid that even a few of you are intelligent enough to see that.
Sure there are plenty of illogical liberals, but there are FAR more illogical wing-nuts.
June 20th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
“And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”
Sorry, does this mention homosexuality? No it does not. It does sound like an admonition against straight divorce however.
It is also quoting the laws of Moses, but I’ll leave that aside.
[citation still needed]