I'm hesitant to discuss this in front of Republicans but I think we might have enough evidence in front of us to draw some conclusions about Obama's effectiveness as a president and so far I'm afraid the outcome isn't all I had hoped for.
I don't know about you but my household's health care costs have set us back well over $20,000 in the past few years and I was counting on some improvements there. The real estate bubble caused me to leave California five years ago and the health care bubble may cause me to leave the United States.
Oh, I know Obama's team prevented another Great Depression but the rescue was set in motion by Bush and his team.
And while Obama seems determined to kiss and hold hands with the Republicans I would prefer to see him handing out some punishment. Not one thing he has done has caused them to alter their tired old cynical game plan.
I mean where are Obama's texting teenagers when we need them?
At this point I don't believe he has a hidden strategy and what we see is what we are going get. He has squandered his political capital and has nothing to show for it except for an anemic recovery. I think our best hope is that he will learn in office.
Hey Democrats am I missing something? Anyone agree or disagree?
You miss alot...Nothin to do with politics though........
I think we are having an abduction problem right here at the forum.
SOMEONE HAS KIDNAPPED HOMETOWN!
There is a reward for:
1. Keeping him paid for by the republicans
2. Returning him paid for by the lefties.
Obama is a decent orator, mediocre politician, and abysmal leader. Those who said he had no leadership skills during the '08 election were spot-on.
I don't know why you think it necessary for him to mete out "punishment" to Republicans.
A partisan view of politics is precisely why you don't have your coveted health care reform. Bi-partisanship doesn't mean knuckling under to pressure from the majority.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 12, 2010, 12:32:09 PM
Obama is a decent orator, mediocre politician, and abysmal leader. Those who said he had no leadership skills during the '08 election were spot-on.
I don't know why you think it necessary for him to mete out "punishment" to Republicans.
A partisan view of politics is precisely why you don't have your coveted health care reform. Bi-partisanship doesn't mean knuckling under to pressure from the majority.
Well said.
He was elected for the very reason that Hometown mentioned. He was elected as "Punishment." Many were willing to overlook his lack of experience, his lack of leadership, and his lack of even minor economic understanding, in order to "punish" others (Republicans).
During the election, the more Republicans harped on his shortcomings, the more Democrats became cemented in contrarian beliefs.
Elections have consequences, and this one was a very good lesson to many. The Democrats could have presented a number of extremely qualified candidates, all of whom would most likely have won, but they chose HOPE over expertise. They chose CHANGE over experience.
Words are windows into thought, and Hometown is not the first democrat I have heard talk of Obama as a vessel of punishment or revenge.
"He that studieth revenge keepeth his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well." –John Milton
Okay, we've heard from the enemy camp. Any Democrats out there?
Quote from: Hometown on February 12, 2010, 04:26:57 PM
Okay, we've heard from the enemy camp. Any Democrats out there?
I disagree. I do think Obama has spent too much time on attemping to forge a bipartisan consensus when there is no possibility for such consensus because the Congresspeople on the right are acting like petulant children. (See Shelby's blanket hold stunt specifically and the hold-up on even noncontroversial nominees generally)
I think he may have recently come to realize that his former tack isn't going to work. We'll see soon enough, I suppose.
Handing over healthcare to Congress to be hashed out the way it was rather than knocking heads in his own party was also a big mistake. I can't blame him for some Congressional Democrats' stupidity, though. We keep electing the fools.
Presidential approval ratings.....
(http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-all.gif)
Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton would have done a better job or passed more legislation than Obama?
Could Hillary Clinton have gone face-to-face with congressional Republicans and fielded questions the way Obama did?... could she have given a more effective State of the Union speech...?
I don't. And let's not even get started on what could have happened had John Edwards been elected POTUS.... and yes, unemployment is too high, but I liked the look of my last 401k statement and would never have guessed the stock market could have gone over 10,000 this year...
Of course, you have the crazies on the right who insist the media is perpetually biased in favor of the Dems, the liberals, and Obama.... at least Ronald Reagan never had to deal with 24-hour cable news talking heads and their chattering class viewership....
Reagan: Media Myth and Reality
6/9/04
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832
The so-called conservatives on this forum also fail to recognize that there was a time halfway through Reagan's first term in which he had really bad approval ratings.... Ronald Reagan spent the entirety of 1982 with under 50% approval ratings.... in Jan of 1983, Reagan had a 35% approval rating after months and months of double-digit unemployment....
April 21, 2009, 11:04 pm
Guest Column: Will Obama Ride Reagan's Ratings Roller Coaster?
http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/guest-column-will-obama-ride-reagans-ratings-rollercoaster/
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/124949/Approval-Obama-Starts-2010-Shaky-Spot.aspx)
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/21/opinion/kohut.jpg)
Should Conservatives Hate Reagan?
http://democrashield.com/2009/11/19/should-conservatives-hate-reagan/
I find it disappointing that "Obamacare" ended up looking more like Hillarycare and Romneycare than what he campaigned on, which did not include an individual mandate.
But I understand that true "change" will never happen with a poll-driven presidency, which is what I suspect would have happened if Hillary were elected prez; would she have "triangulated" policy at the first sign of trouble?.... brought back Dick Morris? :P
After this economy rebounds, Obama will not have increased the national debt as much as Reagan did back in his day... the right wingers these days are acting even crazier than the left wing Dems did a year or two into Reagan's first term....
Then there's George W...... tax cuts, a new prescription drug entitlement, two wars... and no request to pay for it... in fact, Dubya wanted to make his tax cuts permanent....
If you look back to the first two years into Reagan's first term, the Republicans told us he was stuck with "Carter's recession"....
And we're only one year into Obama's first term.
::waves:: I'm a Democrat, and although I wish things were progressing more quickly, I also think Obama has been facing enormous challenges.
I've wondered sometimes if the Republicans didn't nominate Palin because they knew what an impossibility it would be to clean up after Bush, so they wanted a Dem to take the blame.
In addition, Obama has faced obstructionism at every turn and an out of control Senate. Paul Krugman actually wrote a great column about how nothing will get accomplished, thanks to Republican obstructionism and the way - the way - well, the way *something,* I don't remember what. After I get some R & R, I'll post the link.
Then, the Dems themselves have been complete doofuses. Between Jane Hamsher and Firedoglake forming a coalition with Grover "Let's drown government and New Orleans in the bathtub!" Norquist, the antisemitic factions of anticorporatist and antiglobalist leftists going after Obama because he installed Rahm (who appears to embody every antisemitic stereotype they can hang on him), and the idiotic PUMAs, the Democrats aren't really showing themselves to be much better than the Republicans in a lot of ways.
I mean, I'm a Democrat because I always thought they were the adults in the room. Given how I've seen too many so-called Dems behaving since Obama got elected, I'm not so sure.
All that said, Obama does have a rather remarkable list of accomplishments for his first year, especially in comparison to most other first-years. I mean, he hasn't invaded any countries run by longtime puppets of the U.S. and blown their capitol city to smithereens, which surely leaves him lacking for Bush fans, and HCR is a problem, but really, it's not too bad in reality.
I'll have more to say when I recover my mind from a week of - well, whatever it was I did all week at work.
Good post, USRufnex.
Quote from: cecelia on February 12, 2010, 07:24:27 PM
Good post, USRufnex.
Thanks... but are you a girl?.... if so.....
(http://knowyourmeme.com/i/1168/original/no_girls_allowed_on_internets.jpg)
Yes, I am a grrrl. :D
We're taking over! ALL YUR INTERNETS R OURZ!!!!!
Quote from: cecelia on February 12, 2010, 07:21:27 PM
I've wondered sometimes if the Republicans didn't nominate Palin because they knew what an impossibility it would be to clean up after Bush, so they wanted a Dem to take the blame.
I got blasted for saying I
almost voted for Al Gore so the Dems could get credit for the already falling economy at the end of the Clinton administration. Consider yourself blasted.
Quote
... nothing will get accomplished, thanks to Republican obstructionism...
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to stop something you really believe is wrong. Sometimes what is wrong is all the hidden crap in an otherwise decent piece of legislation. Works both ways by the way. It's only obstructionism if your party/beliefs are being blocked.
Quote
... the Democrats aren't really showing themselves to be much better than the Republicans in a lot of ways.
No big surprise there.
Quote
...because I always thought they were the adults in the room.
Interesting. I never thought that.
Quote
All that said, Obama does have a rather remarkable list of accomplishments for his first year, especially in comparison to most other first-years. I mean, he hasn't invaded any countries run by longtime puppets of the U.S. and blown their capitol city to smithereens,
It's sometimes hard to convince people that not doing something (perhaps not doing anything) is better than doing something wrong.
I thought for sure that Obama was going to improve the world opinion of the USA by picking a country not in the middle east and bomb their capitol to show we are not prejudiced against the middle east.
Otherwise I don't see a remarkable list of accomplishments.
Quote from: cecelia on February 12, 2010, 07:21:27 PM
::waves:: I'm a Democrat, and although I wish things were progressing more quickly, I also think Obama has been facing enormous challenges.
I've wondered sometimes if the Republicans didn't nominate Palin because they knew what an impossibility it would be to clean up after Bush, so they wanted a Dem to take the blame.
In addition, Obama has faced obstructionism at every turn and an out of control Senate. Paul Krugman actually wrote a great column about how nothing will get accomplished, thanks to Republican obstructionism and the way - the way - well, the way *something,* I don't remember what. After I get some R & R, I'll post the link.
Then, the Dems themselves have been complete doofuses. Between Jane Hamsher and Firedoglake forming a coalition with Grover "Let's drown government and New Orleans in the bathtub!" Norquist, the antisemitic factions of anticorporatist and antiglobalist leftists going after Obama because he installed Rahm (who appears to embody every antisemitic stereotype they can hang on him), and the idiotic PUMAs, the Democrats aren't really showing themselves to be much better than the Republicans in a lot of ways.
I mean, I'm a Democrat because I always thought they were the adults in the room. Given how I've seen too many so-called Dems behaving since Obama got elected, I'm not so sure.
All that said, Obama does have a rather remarkable list of accomplishments for his first year, especially in comparison to most other first-years. I mean, he hasn't invaded any countries run by longtime puppets of the U.S. and blown their capitol city to smithereens, which surely leaves him lacking for Bush fans, and HCR is a problem, but really, it's not too bad in reality.
I'll have more to say when I recover my mind from a week of - well, whatever it was I did all week at work.
(http://msfriendly.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ostrich_head_in_ground_full.jpg)
Breadburner, fabulous visual of Republicans under Bush! Thanks! ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 13, 2010, 12:31:53 PMSometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to stop something you really believe is wrong. Sometimes what is wrong is all the hidden crap in an otherwise decent piece of legislation. Works both ways by the way. It's only obstructionism if your party/beliefs are being blocked.
Looking forward to credible evidence from you on exactly what hidden "crap" you're referring to. :)
Quote from: cecelia on February 13, 2010, 01:08:39 PM
Looking forward to credible evidence from you on exactly what hidden "crap" you're referring to. :)
Mostly spending that is unrelated to the bill, whatever the bill is. Deals like buying off
Kansas Nebraska in the health bill. If you haven't heard of that type of stuff that I generalized as crap, you are the ostrich in the earlier photo.
Edit: corrected spelling of Nebraska
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 13, 2010, 01:25:03 PM
Mostly spending that is unrelated to the bill, whatever the bill is. Deals like buying off Kansas in the health bill. If you haven't heard of that type of stuff that I generalized as crap, you are the ostrich in the earlier photo.
If you're gonna criticize some of the most important legislation in the last 50 years, at least know who was bought off. It was Nebraska.
Makes you righties look uninforme...wait a minute...
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 13, 2010, 01:25:03 PM
Mostly spending that is unrelated to the bill, whatever the bill is. Deals like buying off Kansas in the health bill. If you haven't heard of that type of stuff that I generalized as crap, you are the ostrich in the earlier photo.
It would sound more sincere if the same crap hadn't been going on while the Republicans controlled the House and Senate. Instead, it seems like petulant whining.
Quote from: Hoss on February 13, 2010, 04:01:57 PM
If you're gonna criticize some of the most important legislation in the last 50 years, at least know who was bought off. It was Nebraska.
Makes you righties look uninforme...wait a minute...
It was just a spelling error. :)
Quote from: nathanm on February 13, 2010, 04:23:12 PM
It would sound more sincere if the same crap hadn't been going on while the Republicans controlled the House and Senate. Instead, it seems like petulant whining.
Show me where I said the Republicans didn't do the same.
Coburn is about the only one trying to stop it and almost everyone thinks he's the worst senator that ever lived.
Quote from: cecelia on February 13, 2010, 01:00:21 PM
Breadburner, fabulous visual of Republicans under Bush! Thanks! ;D
Thanks for carrying on the tradition.......
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 13, 2010, 06:35:18 PM
Show me where I said the Republicans didn't do the same.
Coburn is about the only one trying to stop it and almost everyone thinks he's the worst senator that ever lived.
You didn't, but you did state that the Republicans weren't being disingenuously obstructionist.
People hating Coburn has nothing to do with his fiscal discipline.
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2010, 06:43:21 PM
You didn't, but you did state that the Republicans weren't being disingenuously obstructionist.
People hating Coburn has nothing to do with his fiscal discipline.
I guess that depends on whether you believe the programs being promoted need to be stopped at any cost.
I believe that Coburn's blocking bills to make the senators see what's really in some bills, often fiscal, is what people hate. They just see the "obstruction" because that's what's on the news. I'm sure that being on the right side of the fence makes some unhappy. Even I don't always care for some of his religious oriented views. I'm sure you have some more.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2010, 07:42:37 PM
I guess that depends on whether you believe the programs being promoted need to be stopped at any cost.
Which I would be completely fine with if it weren't for their profligate spending when they were in power. I find it hard to believe that the Republican Congresspeople abruptly found their scruples sometime in the last couple of years.
(Not talking about Coburn specifically, he complained about Republican overspending, too. That's pretty much the only thing I like about him)
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2010, 08:37:26 PM
Which I would be completely fine with if it weren't for their profligate spending when they were in power. I find it hard to believe that the Republican Congresspeople abruptly found their scruples sometime in the last couple of years.
Funny how attitudes change when the party in power changes. Seems like just 2 years ago that the Dems were complaining about runaway spending.
I have to agree that Bush spent a lot. "Your" opinion of the war(s) will influence "your" opinion of whether or not it was justified.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2010, 09:56:18 PM
Seems like just 2 years ago that the Dems were complaining about runaway spending.
They were indeed complaining, but they weren't slowing the functioning of our legislature to a crawl, either. If they had, the Republicans would have had no problem with eliminating the filibuster.
Sadly, Harry Reid lacks the will to play those same games of brinksmanship.
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2010, 08:37:26 PM
Which I would be completely fine with if it weren't for their profligate spending when they were in power. I find it hard to believe that the Republican Congresspeople abruptly found their scruples sometime in the last couple of years.
(Not talking about Coburn specifically, he complained about Republican overspending, too. That's pretty much the only thing I like about him)
Take a read of any major spending bill during the Republican majority years and I assure you they are crammed full of pork for Democrat-represented districts as well.
And now when obstructionist Democrats create problems in getting legislation through it's those evil Republicans keeping anything from happening. Has it ever dawned on you that Democrats are contributing every bit as much to the problems in Washington? There's a whole corrupt culture which transcends party lines. The longer people continue to believe it's "the other" party which is responsible for run-away spending and obstructionism, the worse our governance becomes and the more we as taxpayers are fleeced.
Well to address some issues raised here by Democrats I would say that our leader should have been prepared for the push back he is getting from Republicans and Democrats. He has not shown enough leadership on healthcare period. And like Jimmy Carter, he's a remarkable statesman but he is lacking in the leadership department.
I do believe Clinton would have been less idealistic and more prepared for the real fight at hand. But in total she may not have been any better.
And to the point that we are getting to clean up another Republican mess, I am in complete agreement. We enable the Republicans by repeatedly cleaning up their messes.
Quote from: Hometown on February 15, 2010, 12:57:51 PM
Well to address some issues raised here by Democrats I would say that our leader should have been prepared for the push back he is getting from Republicans and Democrats. He has not shown enough leadership on healthcare period. And like Jimmy Carter, he's a remarkable statesman but he is lacking in the leadership department.
I do believe Clinton would have been less idealistic and more prepared for the real fight at hand. But in total she may not have been any better.
And to the point that we are getting to clean up another Republican mess, I am in complete agreement. We enable the Republicans by repeatedly cleaning up their messes.
A good reason why there is push back is because Senators and Congressmen/women will not be re-elected if they don't do the will of their constituents. If President Obama is finding it hard to get better than tepid support for many of his initiatives, that's probably a pretty good indicator that the average American voter doesn't want them. He is not "King Obama" he is the leader of a representative republic and as such needs to realize that his view isn't the only relevant view on the table.
Here's a belated response for you, Hometown.
I don't think that we (Democrats) were wrong to see in Obama so much potential. It was plainly there, and a lot of people recognized it. Conan or Gassy will tell you all that "hopey-changey" stuff was all marketing. I don't believe that; I think there was a demonstrable core of ideas to the Obama candidacy. He's a thoughtful guy, he's articulate (per Biden). He wasn't as experienced as, say, Bush I was, but neither was Bush II. His campaign was exceptionally successful at raising money and motivating the hopey changey lobby. It also neutralized some very experienced campaigners. The surprise to me was how he did it. He pulled off some amazing pivots, like the Jeremiah Wright speech that neutralized several controversies, and played an exceptional long game against McCain. Essentially, he created and one of the most successful national campaigns in modern American history. To me, that says a lot about his executive abilities.
Unfortunately, I think he misjudged 1) his mandate and 2) the desire for bipartisanship in the country. At the same time, the electorate has misjudged (and continues to misjudge) how dire our politics have become, and the blame tends to get shifted to Obama for that. (Though it hasn't shifted entirely. It's taken a good long time for the shine to wear off, and even now there's still a well of good-feeling for Obama out there, IMO. If he were to start succeeding today, his approval numbers would skyrocket.)
As for the misjudged mandate: I think he believes he was elected to heal the rift between D's and R's. As he perceives it, that's one of his prime directives. He's abdicated an amazing amount of power to the R's in the hope that they'll come along in the things he's proposing. To date, he's gotten virtually nothing from them and yet he still courts them. It can only be because he thinks bipartisanship is an end in itself, not a means to get things done. To me, the Baltimore GOP Q and A of a few weeks ago was a glimmer of recognition (on his part) that maybe a new tack needs to be taken.
As for the bipartisanship: there is no such thing in our politics right now. There is absolutely no middle ground among the electorate. It may be that Americans (ones who vote and ones who don't vote) are overwhelmingly centrist, but voters are completely partisan. You'll be unsurprised to hear that I blame several decades of concerted conservative efforts to build a media and think-tank machine that responds like clockwork to new cultural memes (I also think you see the Tea Party right now fighting against some of the more insidious efforts of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, too . . . but that's another post).
I think there's also a demonstrable difference between the GOP and the Dems right now. GOP is exercising all the party discipline, and the Dems – for many reasons, legitimate and not – are completely splintered. Obama also abdicated his healthcare agenda entirely to Congressional Dems, whose majority is weak and led by weak, unimaginative people. I simply can't imagine, for instance, Bush II's people allowing members of his razor thin coalition to get away with pulling a Ben Nelson or a Joe Lieberman, or for that matter an Anthony Weiner (look him up).
So: short version: Obama's misplayed his hand, he made a major misjudgement about the electorate, and has been working with a group of either morons or people who actively wish him ill. In normal times, that would be hard enough, but he's slogging through the Great Recession, two wars, and a perfect budget storm of runaway entitlements. Also, global warming. Oh, and the gays want to be able to serve in the military. Really, with a list like that it's amazing so much has gotten done.
Step 1) Republicans/Democrats in House and Senate stop anything from happening
Step 2) Blame Obama for Congress not passing anything
Step 3) Repeat
Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2010, 02:33:32 PM
Here's a belated response for you, Hometown.
I don't think that we (Democrats) were wrong to see in Obama so much potential. It was plainly there, and a lot of people recognized it. Conan or Gassy will tell you all that "hopey-changey" stuff was all marketing. I don't believe that; I think there was a demonstrable core of ideas to the Obama candidacy. He's a thoughtful guy, he's articulate (per Biden). He wasn't as experienced as, say, Bush I was, but neither was Bush II. His campaign was exceptionally successful at raising money and motivating the hopey changey lobby. It also neutralized some very experienced campaigners. The surprise to me was how he did it. He pulled off some amazing pivots, like the Jeremiah Wright speech that neutralized several controversies, and played an exceptional long game against McCain. Essentially, he created and one of the most successful national campaigns in modern American history. To me, that says a lot about his executive abilities.
Unfortunately, I think he misjudged 1) his mandate and 2) the desire for bipartisanship in the country. At the same time, the electorate has misjudged (and continues to misjudge) how dire our politics have become, and the blame tends to get shifted to Obama for that. (Though it hasn't shifted entirely. It's taken a good long time for the shine to wear off, and even now there's still a well of good-feeling for Obama out there, IMO. If he were to start succeeding today, his approval numbers would skyrocket.)
As for the misjudged mandate: I think he believes he was elected to heal the rift between D's and R's. As he perceives it, that's one of his prime directives. He's abdicated an amazing amount of power to the R's in the hope that they'll come along in the things he's proposing. To date, he's gotten virtually nothing from them and yet he still courts them. It can only be because he thinks bipartisanship is an end in itself, not a means to get things done. To me, the Baltimore GOP Q and A of a few weeks ago was a glimmer of recognition (on his part) that maybe a new tack needs to be taken.
As for the bipartisanship: there is no such thing in our politics right now. There is absolutely no middle ground among the electorate. It may be that Americans (ones who vote and ones who don't vote) are overwhelmingly centrist, but voters are completely partisan. You'll be unsurprised to hear that I blame several decades of concerted conservative efforts to build a media and think-tank machine that responds like clockwork to new cultural memes (I also think you see the Tea Party right now fighting against some of the more insidious efforts of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, too . . . but that's another post).
I think there's also a demonstrable difference between the GOP and the Dems right now. GOP is exercising all the party discipline, and the Dems – for many reasons, legitimate and not – are completely splintered. Obama also abdicated his healthcare agenda entirely to Congressional Dems, whose majority is weak and led by weak, unimaginative people. I simply can't imagine, for instance, Bush II's people allowing members of his razor thin coalition to get away with pulling a Ben Nelson or a Joe Lieberman, or for that matter an Anthony Weiner (look him up).
So: short version: Obama's misplayed his hand, he made a major misjudgement about the electorate, and has been working with a group of either morons or people who actively wish him ill. In normal times, that would be hard enough, but he's slogging through the Great Recession, two wars, and a perfect budget storm of runaway entitlements. Also, global warming. Oh, and the gays want to be able to serve in the military. Really, with a list like that it's amazing so much has gotten done.
Wev,
Did he have a mandate or simply win a land-slide election from people who got caught up in his personality and the issues of the day?
By the popular vote and electoral college vote, statistically he had what some could call a mandate. A lot of people got energized to go to the polls who really don't understand nor care much about the American political system. They had an opportunity to elect a young, energetic black man and help make history. They had an opportunity to vote against an unpopular war, rising unemployment, and imploding financial markets which wrecked everything from the real estate market to people's retirement accounts. A perfect storm for a political challenger from the opposing party in a two-party system.
He had brilliant handlers, a brilliant young speech writer, and people who understood how to make the most of the internet to reach out and raise funds. His voice is striking and many people think he's one of the best political orators ever. I personally don't hold his public speaking skills in that high of esteem and contrary to what you might think as far as any political prejudice I might have, his message doesn't color my opinion as to why I don't think he's that great a speaker.
A mandate would imply that he's been given Carte Blanche to make a whole slew of social, fiscal, and political changes. He was never given that. Winning election as President of a representative republic cannot be a mandate. A mandate is an express authorization or command.
So, did he really have a mandate, or did he simply have a lot of people vote for him due to that hopey changey thing?
As far as if he's staked his success on morons, then he's proven he doesn't have great leadership skills. Great leaders surround themselves with brilliant minds and people who know how to get things done.
QuoteGreat leaders surround themselves with brilliant minds and people who know how to get things done.
That's a very important quality of a great leader. I have seen only the contrary from President Obama.
Over a year later and I guess I'm still shocked by the Biden thing.
Really? ???
Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2010, 04:08:55 PM
That's a very important quality of a great leader. I have seen only the contrary from President Obama.
Over a year later and I guess I'm still shocked by the Biden thing.
Really? ???
You can actually say that after the alternatives choice for Veep?
Really?????
Hey, just because one side makes a poor choice shouldn't give license to the other side to do something stupid! You're right Palen made Biden look good, but wow! Now you gotta deal with it.
I just turned away from the forum for a moment to find out that now Biden is having it off with the city of New York.
(http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2009/06/05/175x131/biden_88206109.jpg)
"The mayor came along and said the cost for providing security to hold this trial is x-hundreds of millions of dollars which I think is much more than would be needed," Biden said.
"I will leave the security of New York City up to the mayor and police commissioner. I think Joe Biden should have talked to City officials. No city should have to put up with the burden and risk of the trial so the administration can have a terroristic pony show," said City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens).
Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2010, 04:17:55 PM
Hey, just because one side makes a poor choice shouldn't give license to the other side to do something stupid! You're right Palen made Biden look good, but wow! Now you gotta deal with it.
I just turned away from the forum for a moment to find out that now Biden is having it off with the city of New York.
(http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2009/06/05/175x131/biden_88206109.jpg)
"The mayor came along and said the cost for providing security to hold this trial is x-hundreds of millions of dollars which I think is much more than would be needed," Biden said.
"I will leave the security of New York City up to the mayor and police commissioner. I think Joe Biden should have talked to City officials. No city should have to put up with the burden and risk of the trial so the administration can have a terroristic pony show," said City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens).
Sure, the dude makes gaffes. Maybe part of his charm. I don't know.
BUT....he is well versed in international politics, and most will concede that fact.
Sarah? Hey, she can see Russia from her front porch! You betcha!! Plus, doesn't 'everybody hate a quitter'?
;D
Now quit it, Gaspar. Remember Vice President Biden is President Obama's special little guy.
Hmmm, he does have sort of an elongated forehead, doesn't he?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2010, 04:23:29 PM
Now quit it, Gaspar. Remember Vice President Biden is President Obama's special little guy.
Hmmm, he does have sort of an elongated forehead, doesn't he?
Kinda reminds me of this guy in some ways:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Frank_Keating_at_a_conference%2C_Oct_20%2C_2001_-_cropped.jpg)
Quote from: Hoss on February 15, 2010, 04:20:01 PM
Sure, the dude makes gaffes. Maybe part of his charm. I don't know.
BUT....he is well versed in international politics, and most will concede that fact.
Sarah? Hey, she can see Russia from her front porch! You betcha!! Plus, doesn't 'everybody hate a quitter'?
;D
Yeah, he's advising the President on such difficult places as Germany, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic. **Yawn**
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2010, 03:47:06 PM
Wev,
Did he have a mandate or simply win a land-slide election from people who got caught up in his personality and the issues of the day?
By the popular vote and electoral college vote, statistically he had what some could call a mandate. A lot of people got energized to go to the polls who really don't understand nor care much about the American political system. They had an opportunity to elect a young, energetic black man and help make history. They had an opportunity to vote against an unpopular war, rising unemployment, and imploding financial markets which wrecked everything from the real estate market to people's retirement accounts. A perfect storm for a political challenger from the opposing party in a two-party system.
He had brilliant handlers, a brilliant young speech writer, and people who understood how to make the most of the internet to reach out and raise funds. His voice is striking and many people think he's one of the best political orators ever. I personally don't hold his public speaking skills in that high of esteem and contrary to what you might think as far as any political prejudice I might have, his message doesn't color my opinion as to why I don't think he's that great a speaker.
A mandate would imply that he's been given Carte Blanche to make a whole slew of social, fiscal, and political changes. He was never given that. Winning election as President of a representative republic cannot be a mandate. A mandate is an express authorization or command.
So, did he really have a mandate, or did he simply have a lot of people vote for him due to that hopey changey thing?
As far as if he's staked his success on morons, then he's proven he doesn't have great leadership skills. Great leaders surround themselves with brilliant minds and people who know how to get things done.
I think we differ on how much agency Obama had during his candidacy. You seem to think (and I remember, thought at the time) that Obama was being guided, had handlers, was channeled and directed to a certain message. There's a sense he was a puppet of greater forces, and I don't know what led you to think that. He seemed to me to have a pretty steady amount of control over his own candidacy and seemed to be guiding it all along. Why do you think he was so passive?
As for morons, I meant the morons in congress, not his cabinet or appointees. The mandate we was given (IMO) was as good as you get in a representative democracy: command of the executive and a filibuster proof majority in both houses. Sadly, his congressional majority looks good on paper but has proven to be considerably less useful than originally advertised.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2010, 01:15:35 PM
He is not "King Obama" he is the leader of a representative republic and as such needs to realize that his view isn't the only relevant view on the table.
Umm. Wow.
I think you must live in an alternative universe.... only explanation for that statement I can think of....
The character assassination on dems in this political forum is ridiculous.
I could share some reasonable insight into what I believe is happening.... but that would be casting pearls before Conan...
Sheesh.
Quote from: Hometown on February 15, 2010, 12:57:51 PM
Well to address some issues raised here by Democrats I would say that our leader should have been prepared for the push back he is getting from Republicans and Democrats. He has not shown enough leadership on healthcare period. And like Jimmy Carter, he's a remarkable statesman but he is lacking in the leadership department.
I do believe Clinton would have been less idealistic and more prepared for the real fight at hand. But in total she may not have been any better.
And to the point that we are getting to clean up another Republican mess, I am in complete agreement. We enable the Republicans by repeatedly cleaning up their messes.
I'm not really understanding the Carter reference. I never considered Carter to be much of a statesman.
I thought he was a squeaky clean political foil to a GOP that was still reeling from Watergate.
It's hard for me to find Obama's grown up campaign speech about race to be the equivalent of Carter's "I have committed adultery in my heart" Playboy interview... or Carter's heartfelt "crisis of confidence" musings, aka "The Malaise Speech"?
In unrelated news, I got my "bill that is not a bill" that looks like a bill but will not be my bill which was mailed to me from St John's billing department for a CAT scan.... $3197.25
I think I will be giving up medical procedures for lent this year....
Quote from: USRufnex on February 15, 2010, 06:26:28 PM
He is not "King Obama" he is the leader of a representative republic and as such needs to realize that his view isn't the only relevant view on the table. (my quote)
Umm. Wow.
I think you must live in an alternative universe.... only explanation for that statement I can think of....
The character assassination on dems in this political forum is ridiculous.
I could share some reasonable insight into what I believe is happening.... but that would be casting pearls before Conan...
Sheesh.
So says the grand poobah of character assassination (Republican Hack, anyone?). You have ZERO capability of holding a decent political conversation because you have this notion that your liberal viewpoint and your life experience is the only one that is relevant in a conversation. You are sort of the Jamesrage from the left side of this board. Rigid and unwilling to consider a viewpoint different than your own. No one else seems to share your mock outrage at my comment(well wait, it probably is real for you). I'm sorry I sullied your fond memories of President Obama from your days back in Chicago. It's called my First Amendment rights.
So what is wrong with my statement that you cherry-picked? Do you think the POTUS has absolute powers like a king? What about my statement is remotely false? Do you think just because lefties kept trying to claim Pres. Bush II was trampling the Constitution that Pres. Obama should too? (Unwarranted wire-tapping anyone? How's closing Gitmo working out?)
How good a job has the Obama administration done at consensus-building? And please don't resort to tired cliche's like the "party of no" not wanting to hear it. Please show me some examples of him truly reaching out to Republicans or moderate Democrats. Showing up at a GOP caucus and making thinly-veiled threats isn't my idea of bi-partisanship. Expecting everyone to knuckle-under to your agenda isn't bi-partisanship. He had his majority for the last year and no one seems to be able to point to one substantive issue that the average person cares about being passed.
The middle is where it's at, and the Obama admin has done a piss-poor job developing a moderate agenda. I think the 2008 Presidential election results showed we wanted change, but to read into that we wanted a change to a very left agenda was the wrong read. He kicked arse in the electoral college but a spread of 8.5 mil votes (after taking out the fringer votes) hardly was a sign people were voting for a liberal agenda. People were tired of Bush (and rightfully so) and figured old and boring Senator McCain was another four years of failed Bush policies.
Is President Obama going to have to wait for a replay of 1994 to get it? I really have tried to give him a chance, and still am. Just because I've used harsh language to state he needs to get with it doesn't mean I want him to fail. I simply cannot find any substantive issues he's taken charge of and actually given us any sort of return thus far, with one exception. I do not wish for him to fail, I want him to succeed and become one of the more successful Presidents ever, I really do.
Here's a few tips they might find useful:
-Start out small on healthcare, get healthcare benefits to those who truly do not have any access to HC now and really want it (that's a very, very small percentage). Leave the insurance companies and "single-payer" alone for now.
-Quit dicking around with the jobs bill and trying to slip in pork for favored SIG's like big ag. Figure out where they could seriously make a difference in putting Americans back to work instead of worrying about political paybacks and expedience.
-Quit making wild claims about how many jobs would be saved or created, that killed his credibility. All he need to say was: "Be patient these things take awhile, I stand behind the American worker"
-I will give him credit for this: For what it's worth, I'm not a huge fan of what happened to Chrysler and GM and how the government stepped in and bailed them out, but we would be looking at probably closer to 20% UE if two of the major American automakers had been allowed to go bust. I would think at some point down the road the government will make good on it's promise to make these companies wholly public again. President Obama got it right on that one.
-Quit pulling stupid and costly stunts to try the Bush Administration by trying terrorists in civil court in Manhattan. This is far worse than shades of Kenneth Starr.
-The American public is skeptical of major take-overs of anything. There's a helpless class in America who wants government to come up with every solution to their problem and more entitlements but that's a minority. There are very visible leaders in poverty-ridden communities who have a good public pulpit in speaking up for entitlements but mainly because it keeps them relevant, flush, and in power of their own world. What's that done to improve the ghettos of NYC, Miami, Detroit, Chicago, Memphis, Dallas, or LA?
-The broader majority will accept help where needed to make America stronger, create jobs, and help ensure prosperity. The majority really don't see income redistribution by penalizing the most wealthy as the right way to go about this. What kind of signal does that send to the middle class? Try too hard, break out of the middle class and we will punish you for this?
Just some random thoughts on what I think Americans by-and-large are trying to tell all the politicians in DC. I really don't see where paying attention to what the populace wants is such a bad idea. It beats the hell out of revolt at every turn, don't you think?
Quote from: USRufnex on February 15, 2010, 07:25:14 PM
In unrelated news, I got my "bill that is not a bill" that looks like a bill but will not be my bill which was mailed to me from St John's billing department for a CAT scan.... $3197.25
Most of the bills that I get that are not a bill have a section for "You may still be billed for.... by ...". I think they are usually from the insurance company though as an "explanation of benefits".
Good Luck.
Dear Conan,
Your longwinded diatribes have fallen on deaf ears....
If I were to read the entire post, I'm sure you've made some fine, moderate-sounding talking points.... aka "BAIT."
But I've lived and worked in different parts of this country and have rarely heard PARTISAN HACKERY as much as I've heard it from you, Gweed, Gas and the rest of the out-of-touch Oklahoma republican hypocrites.... I get it....
YOU HATE OBAMA.
YOU WANT EVERYONE TO REJOICE IN YOUR MUTUAL HATRED OF THE MAN.
JUST ADMIT IT.
That's what YOU do.
That's what you did last year; that's what you've been doing this year; that's what you'll do next year. And the year after that....
I can set my clock by it.
It really doesn't matter what Obama does; or what Pelosi does; or what Reid does; it doesn't matter what I post; it doesn't matter how far to the right, the left, or the mushy middle that any dem politician goes, it will never satisfy you.
Ever.
It's never ending.
It's not reasonable.
You may post some innocent sounding critiques of the administration but after you boil it down....
It's still simple character assassination.... doesn't matter if somebody just died; he's a crook.... doesn't matter if there's a scientific consensus supporting Al Gore's position; global warming's a "hoax"... doesn't matter what I or that poor woman at Coburn's town hall say about healthcare; we're just being "used" and "duped" by liberal dems....
You think everything government does is a "smile sandwich."
And you are so egotistical that you think you somehow KNOW Barack Obama.... you somehow can come to the conclusion that you know the inner workings of his mind.... but I knew people who had worked with him.... I knew a staffer or two for Republicans in Illinois who worked against him because they disagreed with him on policy issues, not because they thought he was "an empty suit."
As much as I'd like to throw out some choice or possibly insightful Illinois-centric quotes about "Rahmbo" or Ray LaHood or Dick Lugar, the silly partisan comments you throw out there on a regular basis make it impossible for me to want to say a damned thing.
When you talk about President Obama like you know his motivations, it is YOU who become ARROGANT AND EGOTISTICAL.
I am old. I have strong opinions. And I like a good pi$$ing match.
I admire wevus for trying to have some sort of serious and civil discussion with you....
Good luck wevus.... I am not going to participate in Conan's pre-conceived circular arguments about which party better reflects bi-partisanship... I could post and post and post reasonable arguments and rebuttals ad nauseum, and still be stuck with more of his stock judgments on Obama's character...
I have much more important things to do with my time and my health and my housing these days.
Hi Kettle, when did you get home? Deaf ears, eh? Then why the long bloviating diatribe which has zero basis in any comments I've ever made.
You just proved my point. You are a partisan hack and Obama groper. You are incabable of having civil political conversations, because you have no constructive interest in solving problems. You mearly like to repeat problems and construct ways for those problems to fit into the hands of people you disagree with most.
My post was actually pretty thoughtful in spite of that little bag of your dogshit you set fire to on my porch and ran off.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2010, 11:31:59 PM
Hi Kettle, when did you get home? Deaf ears, eh? Then why the long bloviating diatribe which has zero basis in any comments I've ever made.
You just proved my point. You are a partisan hack and Obama groper. You are incabable of having civil political conversations, because you have no constructive interest in solving problems. You mearly like to repeat problems and construct ways for those problems to fit into the hands of people you disagree with most.
My post was actually pretty thoughtful in spite of that little bag of your dogshit you set fire to on my porch and ran off.
Au contraire.
Do you ever shut up?
Geez.
11450 posts.
SSDD. ::)
Let me just say, Conan is pretty moderate. I'll leave it at that.
(http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/08/23-End/flying-cat-fight.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2010, 04:08:55 PM
Over a year later and I guess I'm still shocked by the Biden thing.
Vice Presidents have historically been little more than seat-warmers. One shouldn't presume that every President desires a Cheney to run things while they clear brush.
Quote from: USRufnex on February 16, 2010, 12:07:39 AM
Au contraire.
Do you ever shut up?
Geez.
11450 posts.
SSDD. ::)
Do your-self a favor and take another hiatus.........
Quote from: Breadburner on February 16, 2010, 09:07:42 AM
Do your-self a favor and take another hiatus.........
Looks as if your wish has been granted. Imagine that, I finally offer some praise for Pres. Obama and Ruf twists completely off. Guido will be so disappointed when he returns from vacation.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2010, 01:35:30 PM
Looks as if your wish has been granted. Imagine that, I finally offer some praise for Pres. Obama and Ruf twists completely off. Guido will be so disappointed when he returns from vacation.
I made it back. What the heck happened to ruf? Oh well, I mean, he was always so rational and reasoned and this happens.
Still, I read that totally unfair and unhinged crap he attacked you with on the Murtha thread and I was really going to unload on him in epic proportion over his ignoring of Murtha's long history of corruption, his libelous attack of our Marines in Haditha (you know, those fighting men ruf suddenly has respect for), his bigoted attack of his own constituents in the last election, and ruf's utter hypocrisy given his bashing of John McCain (you know, that non serving mega pu$$y) just because Murtha was a veteran. Well, I'm a veteran (bet you didn't know that), and I never been an unindicted co-conspirator that testified against former colleagues of mine to save my a$$ nor have I been accused of steering tax dollars into friends businesses. I guess by ruf's standards I am better than Murtha. Yay me!
My favorite Murtha pic:
(http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/MurthaCodePink.jpg)
Quote from: Hometown on February 12, 2010, 12:14:22 PM
I'm hesitant to discuss this in front of Republicans but I think we might have enough evidence in front of us to draw some conclusions about Obama's effectiveness as a president and so far I'm afraid the outcome isn't all I had hoped for.
I don't know about you but my household's health care costs have set us back well over $20,000 in the past few years and I was counting on some improvements there. The real estate bubble caused me to leave California five years ago and the health care bubble may cause me to leave the United States.
Oh, I know Obama's team prevented another Great Depression but the rescue was set in motion by Bush and his team.
And while Obama seems determined to kiss and hold hands with the Republicans I would prefer to see him handing out some punishment. Not one thing he has done has caused them to alter their tired old cynical game plan.
I mean where are Obama's texting teenagers when we need them?
At this point I don't believe he has a hidden strategy and what we see is what we are going get. He has squandered his political capital and has nothing to show for it except for an anemic recovery. I think our best hope is that he will learn in office.
Hey Democrats am I missing something? Anyone agree or disagree?
I thought I'd just bring back the original premise for this thread.
HT asks for input from Dems and the first 4 responses were from.... drumroll please..... Republicans.
If any deny that political affiliation, then I'd say you're arguably politically to the right of Republicans on any number of issues.... and unwittingly close to Michael Moore on a position or two, strangely enough...
HT, five years ago, I stopped singing professionally because I felt I was playing Russian Roulette with my healthcare.
The real estate bubble caused me to leave Chicago over three years ago. If I'd been in a position to buy, I could have easily been stuck in one of those "underwater" mortgages... the real estate people told me the only way I'd ever be able to buy a place of my own in Chicago was to do A, B, and C.... and it was still going to be over the top of my budget... of course, I was also told real estate prices never go down, even in a recession....
I stopped posting for awhile after reading a thread complaining about name calling..... after reading over
this thread again, these political arguments just aren't worth the trouble anymore... I like Tulsa, I like the people, but I hate the politics here and likely will always feel that way... I'm sure Michael Bates had similar feelings about Cambridge/Boston.... but if you take the road less traveled, you can meet repressed yet reasonable Republicans in Boston or repressed yet reasonable Democrats in Tulsa...
Unfortunately, when conventional Republican answers are perpetually based on deregulation and voluntary compliance, you have situations crop up in which healthcare "have-nots" who have the money end up traveling to Mexico for an MRI.... I hear Monterrey is very nice this time of the year, HT... 8)
For me..... well, these days.... because of my experience with mortgage companies thus far, it may make more financial sense for me to just move back to Chicago and buy a higher priced condo than to stay in Tulsa....
Go figure.
---RUF
Like I said.......
^^Typical.........
(http://squathole.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/wingnut2.jpg?w=194&h=300)
Softening up a little in your old age, Ruf? I think you read my posts with a filter that is simply not there. If you finally did read all my posts on the topic, I mean no disrespect to President Obama (If you notice I almost always address him as President, Pres, or POTUS which is proper and sounds a lot better than crap like "Baby Bush" or "Shrub" that the OP is so fond of saying.
My criticism of him is nothing different nor less than I've recieved from my own employers in the past or the occasional pep talk I get from time to time if I'm not meeting my stated goals. Let's face it, his agenda simply is too risky politically to fly through the HOR and Senate. Why is that? Senators and Reps have to answer to the voters in November. Even Bayh said something really poignant. Senators now campaign for six years out of six. If the people wanted his agenda and it was economically feasible, he'd be getting his way. I perhaps post comments which are sarcastic or might seem disrepectful but I'm simply trying to get you not to take yourself so seriously and to see there is a middle ground outside your own chosen paradigms. I think I heard a little of that in your latest post. Glad you didn't disappear completely (well sort of ;))
I do admire your passion when it comes to politics, just don't ever disallow anyone els e
No Ruf,
Photos of proper wing nuts:
(http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/wingnut.jpg)
(http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2009/11/16/1258402341-palin.jpg)
The problem with politics is, you get people like the current President. He first comes to prominence making the speech at the Democratic convention, 2004, very inspiring, very idealistic. Like any other pol, I suppose, but, that idealism was sincere. It's all well and good to be idealistic when you're campaigning, sure, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. I outgrew my idealism long ago, but for those who still have it, more power to them. And if they want to keep it, stay out of politics. Unfortunately, idealism has to give way to reality when one goes into politics. Certain concessions have to be made for the way things are really done in Washington, if one wants to accomplish anything.