Looks like he's getting cannibalized by his media minions:
Chris Matthews compared his speech on energy to one by President Carter 33 years ago and accused him of no direction. It's ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."
(Guess the honeymoon is over there, I wonder if Matthews has taken down the Obama poster over his bed?)
Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling." "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."
Mo Dowd seems to have woken up from hopenosis:
From this past Sunday: "In her New York Times column Sunday, Maureen Dowd blasted President Obama's attitude towards the press, which she said has "self-pitying echoes of Nixon":
Like many Democrats, he thinks the press is supposed to be on his side...the former constitutional lawyer now in the White House understands that the press has a role in the democracy. But he is an elitist, too, as well as thin-skinned and controlling."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/14/obama-vs-the-press-mauree_n_611387.html
After the speech:
"How can a man who was a dazzling enough politician to become the first black president at age 47 suddenly become so obdurately self-destructive about politics?
President Obama's bloodless quality about people and events, the emotional detachment that his aides said allowed him to see things more clearly, has instead obscured his vision. It has made him unable to understand things quickly on a visceral level and put him on the defensive in this spring of our discontent, failing to understand that Americans are upset that a series of greedy corporations have screwed over the little guy without enough fierce and immediate pushback from the president.
"Even though I'm president of the United States, my power is not limitless," Obama, who has forced himself to ingest a load of gulf crab cakes, shrimp and crawfish tails, whinged to Grand Isle, La., residents on Friday. "So I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw."
Once more on Tuesday night, we were back to back-against-the-wall time. The president went for his fourth-quarter, Michael Jordan, down-to-the-wire, thrill shot in the Oval Office, his first such dramatic address to a nation sick about the slick.
You know the president is drowning — in oil this time — when he uses the Oval Office. And do words really matter when the picture of oil gushing out of the well continues to fill the screen?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/opinion/16dowd.html?ref=columnists
So, this I ask:
Were these (and other) pundits wrong to expect this speech to be telling of all future U.S. energy policy? Is the media giving him fair treatment? I think he seems oddly detached through all this, I really do.
Well obviously conman they are all racists.
I wasn't impressed.
He told alot of the same things earlier yesterday while in the region.
I'm not sure what all he can promise to do.
I guess he could invade something.
You know, I sit here and I read all the crap one way or the other being spewed regarding 'the president should have done this' or 'the president should have done that'.
Let's harken (no pun intended there) back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill...
I want to know if Bush Sr was as excoriated by the opposition party as Obama has been today? I'm not saying Obama is doing all the right things, because obviously he needs to communicate what needs to be done better , but honestly...what more can we expect him to do? Take over BP? He has dispatched the CG, which is SOP for this type of disaster. But aside from that, really, what else is there to do? If he does nothing, he gets excoriated because of it. If he tries to 'kick some donkey, he's painted as being too confrontational and anti-big-company. It's a no-win situation for him.
Seriously...I've been digging to see if Bush was ever raked over the coals the way this president has been for the EV disaster. So far I can't find anything that resembles it. If others can, please point me in that direction.
Quote from: Hoss on June 16, 2010, 03:00:31 PM
You know, I sit here and I read all the crap one way or the other being spewed regarding 'the president should have done this' or 'the president should have done that'.
Let's harken (no pun intended there) back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill...
I want to know if Bush Sr was as excoriated by the opposition party as Obama has been today? I'm not saying Obama is doing all the right things, because obviously he needs to communicate what needs to be done better , but honestly...what more can we expect him to do? Take over BP? He has dispatched the CG, which is SOP for this type of disaster. But aside from that, really, what else is there to do? If he does nothing, he gets excoriated because of it. If he tries to 'kick some donkey, he's painted as being too confrontational and anti-big-company. It's a no-win situation for him.
Seriously...I've been digging to see if Bush was ever raked over the coals the way this president has been for the EV disaster. So far I can't find anything that resembles it. If others can, please point me in that direction.
You really can't compare it because Presidents don't seem to have been so harshly scruitinized over natural and man-made disasters until Bush 43. This also garners more relevance as the theater is the same: The Gulf Coast. That and Bush was under fire after four days and labelled a racist which angered a lot of people. Unfortunately, this is partisan politics at it's worst but both Presidents have shown lameness or detachment from reality in these crises: "Great job, Brownie!" As far as President Obama, he was slow to adress the problem and it's seemed more like an annoyance to him rather than something he's interested in showing true leadership over. This is what happens when you take a good orator with limited leadership skills and put him in high office. Bush was a
relatively good leader, he was not a great speaker. JMO.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 16, 2010, 03:07:04 PM
You really can't compare it because Presidents don't seem to have been so harshly scruitinized over natural and man-made disasters until Bush 43. This also garners more relevance as the theater is the same: The Gulf Coast. That and Bush was under fire after four days and labelled a racist which angered a lot of people. Unfortunately, this is partisan politics at it's worst but both Presidents have shown lameness or detachment from reality in these crises: "Great job, Brownie!" As far as President Obama, he was slow to adress the problem and it's seemed more like an annoyance to him rather than something he's interested in showing true leadership over. This is what happens when you take a good orator with limited leadership skills and put him in high office. Bush was a relatively good leader, he was not a great speaker. JMO.
But Co, I don't buy that.
With Bush Jr, it was the lack of FEMA response (because it was a natural disaster and the response to it was equal of one) and co-ordination between the agencies. Now, people will come down on the side of 'local should have responded to the people's needs' but it's still about government and the natural progression up the chain. With BP it was a company disaster. With FEMA, it was a federal disaster.
You can't compare Katrina to the EV. The BP disaster and the EV disaster are better compared because they were both caused by man-made disasters tied to corporations.
I just feel like a double-standard is being set here. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I'm equally sure that people say I'm going to be an 'apologist', when it's further from the truth. The Pres has dropped the ball on this one as far as the communication goes. I think the right will try to make this his 'Katrina', which is really not surprising given the state of political discourse in the country these days.
It seems that President Obama is more concerned with turning this crisis into another tool to push policy, and there's this awkward drive within his administration to somehow force this square peg into a round hole (no pun intended).
I just watched the speech. It followed the same pattern as all of his other speeches. This address should have been about PLANS and STRATEGIES. It should have spelled out a course of action. Instead, it played lip-service to the crisis with mock concern, and then turned to CAMPAIGNING for policy. It was a presidential fail on all counts, but it was no different in structure from any of his other addresses. He campaigns. It's all he knows, and he's good at it, it just is not applicable here.
Heaven forbid we have a massive earthquake, or meteor strike. There simply won't be enough Nobel Prize winners to head up all of the Blue-Ribbon Committees.
Also. . .Word has it that Jimmy Carter is just giddy today.
I've been unhappy with Obama's response to this overall. He's limited in what he CAN do, but the pieces of the puzzle he and federal government are responsible for should work like clockwork and everyone should know everything he's doing all the time. That's the only way this catastrophe doesn't sink his presidency. IMO, the leak is going to be bigger in scope monetarily and in number of people affected than Katrina ever was, but the hellish thing about it is it's unfolding over a period of months. We're all going to get ample time to pick apart every inch of the response, and every in and out of BPs attempts to skate.
I think this story headline from the LA Times says it all:
There's a pipe spewing a gazillion gobs of oil into the gulf, so let's build more windmills
Quote from: Gaspar on June 16, 2010, 03:33:04 PM
This address should have been about PLANS and STRATEGIES.
I don't know what speech you watched, but there were definitely plans and strategies discussed. For the plugging of the well (drill relief wells, duh!), for ensuring BP pays for the damages it caused, for finally getting on the never-done Bush project of restoring the Mississippi delta, for the reform of MMS, and for reducing the need for deep water drilling. Granted, he didn't go into great depth on any of these topics, but I don't really expect that in a prime time speech.
The broad outlines are appropriate for that forum, and that's what we got.
Gaspar, are you seriously saying that it's a bad thing to get the experts together to formulate a plan? I don't remember if it was you, but someone expressed a desire for an Apollo 13 style problem solving. Seems to me that's what you get when you put a bunch of experts in a room and assign them a task. Would you rather Obama ask the day traders how best to contain the gusher?
And doesn't it make sense to use less oil so we don't have to drill for it in areas where the risk is higher?
Of course Republicans are going to turn this into President Obama's Katrina. Hell, the media is even playing along now, take a look at this shameless sell of a headline posing as news:
"Federal Regulator Repeatedly Failed to Inspect Deepwater Horizon – Including for One-Quarter of Obama Presidency"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/federal-regulator-repeatedly-failed-to-inspect-deepwater-horizon-including-for-onequarter-of-obama-p.html
Democrats seem to want to turn catastrophe into an excuse for policy change. Patrick Kennedy was blathering like an idiot after Katrina pointing to our dependence on fossil fuels as being responsible for the hurricane. (Ironically, RFK Jr. represents Louisiana fishermen in a class action lawsuit over the spill).
Republicans use catastrophe to point to weakness in leadership ("Bill Clinton didn't have the balls or interest in going after Bin Laden when he had the chance").
Here is what is decidedly different between EV and DH: Exxon Valdez happened in a more remote area of the world, the spill was limited to 11 million gallons and had a finite potential for damage as the ship had a total of 55 million gallons of oil on board. The spill in the Gulf could spew how much oil for who knows how long?
Not to diminish the fishing or tourist trade of Prince William Sound, but the Gulf has a much higher population depending on fishing, tourism, import/export trade which uses ports in New Orleans, Mobile, Gulfport, & Pennsacola as well as the ICW. Should this go on un-abated for much longer, oil will start arriving on beaches on the west coast of Florida and could end up in the Gulf Stream and pull it through The Keys and around the east coast of Florida.
Here's another difference in 1989, how many homes had the internet? The 24 hour news cycle still had another year or so to go before it's potential was realized with wall-to-wall unprecidented live coverage from the Iraq war. Talk radio still wasn't in full vogue yet and really didn't gain in popularity until after President Clinton was elected. We live in a 24/7 information environment now that we didn't live in back in 1989. Back then I got my news from the World and Trib and the evening news or morning news on KRMG. Now I get online and can get fresh news at the touch of a finger. Many more people are plying the trade of journalism now than there were 21 years ago and it creates a need for more news to report and more opinions to be cast. It's an entirely different world of communication and blame seems more important as part of a story now than it did before.
Can anyone else point to a President ever being criticized over a hurricane, earthquake or tornado before Katrina? Can anyone point to another President who has been so beleagured over an environmental disaster? This is a far different political climate which dates back to Watergate and has gotten progressively worse, especially in our day and age of instant media gratification.
/wandering rant
Quote from: nathanm on June 16, 2010, 04:06:25 PM
I don't know what speech you watched, but there were definitely plans and strategies discussed. For the plugging of the well (drill relief wells, duh!), for ensuring BP pays for the damages it caused, for finally getting on the never-done Bush project of restoring the Mississippi delta, for the reform of MMS, and for reducing the need for deep water drilling. Granted, he didn't go into great depth on any of these topics, but I don't really expect that in a prime time speech.
The broad outlines are appropriate for that forum, and that's what we got.
Gaspar, are you seriously saying that it's a bad thing to get the experts together to formulate a plan? I don't remember if it was you, but someone expressed a desire for an Apollo 13 style problem solving. Seems to me that's what you get when you put a bunch of experts in a room and assign them a task. Would you rather Obama ask the day traders how best to contain the gusher?
And doesn't it make sense to use less oil so we don't have to drill for it in areas where the risk is higher?
Granted, President Obama is taking a beating over specific things which are not within his pervue like actually plugging the well or dragging oil booms. However, he has shown only tepid leadership and the media is seeing this as a weakness now and turning on him. Everyone is also frustrated with the slow response at all levels of the Federal Government in getting needed permits and approvals to try and mitigate damage. Much as President Obama isn't the director of the EPA or the MMS, President Bush wasn't the director of FEMA either but he gets to take the blame as the ultimate boss.
I haven't found a pundit yet who lauded this as being long on strategy and plans, that's the main reason they've panned it so hard. Sure we should use less oil, but which is a more
practical approach? Trying to tell 6 billion people around the globe to start walking more and driving less or allowing companies to drill in less difficult and dangerous areas so that they aren't pushed out to having to drill in 5000 feet of water?
Developing green jobs is the mantra coming out of this, that's been a mantra for 20 years and over-hyped the last 18 months. There was a huge push toward biodiesel and ethanol (still doesn't solve the problem for someone who doesn't drive a diesel or have a flex-fuel vehicle which can handle more than 10% eth) with many plants coming on line 5 years ago. The government has failed to support them. Case in point, and it's one of many: There's a huge Prairie Pride bio-d plant sitting in western Mo. just waiting for Congress to re-up tax credits so it can resume operations, this plant was completed in 2008 and operated until earlier this year when tax credits petered out. That's the only way bio-fuels and green energy are viable, is via subsidies which makes them unpractical at the moment when we still have God only knows how much in oil and gas reserves. So long as oil and gas stays priced comparatively low, alternative fuels aren't practical.
Ironically, it's actually alternative methods to raise previously un-recoverable petroleum reserves out of the ground which is making financial sense right now so long as oil remains at over $60 per bbl. without any subsidies or tax breaks. Figure out how to make alternative energy stand on it's own two feet without raiding the treasury, there's your solution.
Someone at the AP still loves him apparently:
"After intense negotiations, BP on Thursday bowed to President Barack Obama's demand for a $20 billion fund to compensate victims of the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The humbled chairman of the giant British company apologized to the American people for the horrendous accident.
BP is suspending its dividends to shareholders for the rest of this year to help pay for the costs, said chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.
Obama announced the agreement after a four-hour meeting between White House and BP officials, with the president participating for various portions.
He also announced the company had agreed to set up a separate $100 million fund to compensate oil rig workers laid off as a result of his six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling.
"The structure we are establishing today is an important step toward making the people of the Gulf Coast whole again, but it will not turn things around overnight," Obama said. He said the vulnerable fishermen, restaurant workers and other people of the Gulf "are uppermost in the minds of all concerned. That's who we're doing this work for."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill
Hey, he participated in parts of the meeting. I'm sure there must have been more pressing matters at hand.
Nate,
You may be the only person in the country who appreciated that speech. I think most people were insulted by it.
I admire your loyalty though.
I do think it's funny though that when things began to go South, the president brought in Thad Allen to take the reigns. I also like how the media has brushed over that one.
In case people don't remember, Adml. Allen was installed by Bush to head up the Katrina response when Brown was found to be ineffective. There is no one more effective, even though the Katrina response is not popular. I hope they don't plan to scapegoat him.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 16, 2010, 04:59:22 PM
You may be the only person in the country who appreciated that speech. I think most people were insulted by it.
I may be the only person in the country who watched the entirety of the speech, rather than just seeing the sound bites played on TV news.
In other news, Obama is the worst president in the past 100 years:
http://www.usofearth.com/polls/?p=144
just for laughs.
Quote from: nathanm on June 16, 2010, 05:08:25 PM
I may be the only person in the country who watched the entirety of the speech,
I wouldn't bet my next paycheck on it if I were you.
BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg's suggestion of what to do with the oil covered turtles recovered by the "small people".
Obama's speech flopped because he is too gosh darned smart and we just cannot understand/comprehend him:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/
Quote from: guido911 on June 17, 2010, 11:47:43 AM
Obama's speech flopped because he is too gosh darned smart and we just cannot understand/comprehend him:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/
Either that person is insane or they are correct and the entire nation is a bunch of complete morons. I don't know how that speech could have been dumbed down any more. He gave no details, just broad outlines.
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2010, 01:27:58 PM
Either that person is insane or they are correct and the entire nation is a bunch of complete morons. I don't know how that speech could have been dumbed down any more. He gave no details, just broad outlines.
Nathan, I think that's the major indigestion issue everyone has with the speech. 57 days into the crisis, at least in most people's minds (including Olbermann and Matthews apparently) they were expecting more than vagaries, they wanted definititve answers and solutions so this was a bad mis-calculation on the administration. It comes off as him being detached, un-prepared, or simply speaking because it was expected of him.
The other part is, his "I'm smarter than you" approach is wearing thin. We aren't seeking the winner of an IQ contest amongst Presidents, we are seeking leadership and the speech wasn't what you'd expect to hear along those lines.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 17, 2010, 02:17:32 PM
Nathan, I think that's the major indigestion issue everyone has with the speech. 57 days into the crisis, at least in most people's minds (including Olbermann and Matthews apparently) they were expecting more than vagaries, they wanted definititve answers and solutions so this was a bad mis-calculation on the administration. It comes off as him being detached, un-prepared, or simply speaking because it was expected of him.
The other part is, his "I'm smarter than you" approach is wearing thin. We aren't seeking the winner of an IQ contest amongst Presidents, we are seeking leadership and the speech wasn't what you'd expect to hear along those lines.
I see where you're coming from, I just don't agree. I think that if he had gone into great detail about the plans he would have been seen as even more professorial or whatever and it would have turned a perfectly decent 15 minute speech into a long and boring 45 minute speech.
Would it really have improved the speech to go on at length about the details of the new cap or the specifics of the supposed wetlands restoration plan (I'll believe that when I see it!)?
It seems like you're holding Obama to a standard that no President has ever met.
Quote from: nathanm on June 17, 2010, 02:58:07 PM
It seems like you're holding Obama to a standard that no President has ever met.
Not at all. He's simply not shown great leadership on this issue and you seem to be one of the very few who thinks he has. I believe his leadership skills are finally being tested and he's not proving to be a very good leader. I personally don't want this mess to get any worse down in the Gulf. By all accounts, this administration has been agonizingly slow to accept foreign aid and has stood in the way of states being able to protect their coast lines.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 17, 2010, 03:08:31 PM
Not at all. He's simply not shown great leadership on this issue and you seem to be one of the very few who thinks he has. I believe his leadership skills are finally being tested and he's not proving to be a very good leader. I personally don't want this mess to get any worse down in the Gulf. By all accounts, this administration has been agonizingly slow to accept foreign aid and has stood in the way of states being able to protect their coast lines.
Obama mentioned in his speech that he will be a "fierce advocate" for the residents of the Gulf.
Hmmm.....now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, back in December 2008.
"I am a
fierce advocate for the Gay and lesbian community."- Barack Obama on the campaign trail
Now I'm really worried for those people...
It's Maddow, but it's good Maddow. No, really.
Brilliant.
So sad that nothing will change.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 07:27:42 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379
Are you bucking kidding me?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating.
The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges."
And people wonder why it is I have very little faith in the government managing my healthcare.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 17, 2010, 09:30:22 PM
"I am a fierce advocate for the Gay and lesbian community."- Barack Obama on the campaign trail
He never said that, he said he'd be a fierce advocate for the Happy and Lebanese communities. Last I heard they weren't fairing very well either ;)
(http://www.hollywoodmegastore.com/Images/6971_Happy_Dwarf_Standup_683.jpg) (http://www.salehbadrah.com/weblogfiles/images/beirut001.jpg)
Campaign promises aren't real.
(http://arclightzero.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pelosi2.jpg)
From US News & World Report today
Titled: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others.
Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.
Obama's policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama's severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.
Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things "must be done" and "should be done" and that "it is time" to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is "the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy." Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an "NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches." In other words, he talks the talk but doesn't know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.
Kinda makes you a little sick.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 02:42:14 PM
The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.
But he IS well-intentioned, mind you.
What is starting to amuse me is all these people saying they didn't see this coming during the campaign. How could you not? He had not one bit of leadership experience demonstrated in any previous endeavor. He's been an "advocate" as a community organizer and state and Federal level legislator, not a leader. Honestly other than the tone of his voice, he's not even really that great of an orator.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 18, 2010, 02:55:23 PM
But he IS well-intentioned, mind you.
He's been an "advocate" as a community organizer and state and Federal level legislator, not a leader.
Actually he's been on the legal size of the community organizer gig (not a foot-soldier), and spent most of his time as a state and federal legislator campaigning for higher office.
Basically he's been a lawyer who's good at campaigning. That's about it.
I'm starting to feel sorry for him. He's completely out of his element. Can you imagine how overwhelmed he must feel?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 03:01:12 PM
Actually he's been on the legal size of the community organizer gig (not a foot-soldier), and spent most of his time as a state and federal legislator campaigning for higher office.
Basically he's been a lawyer who's good at campaigning. That's about it.
I'm starting to feel sorry for him. He's completely out of his element. Can you imagine how overwhelmed he must feel?
He really showed it the other night, I thought he looks very stressed. I honestly would not want the job and I'm sure there's been many thoughts of: "Be careful what you wish for..." He came in at a very difficult time in U.S. history, you've got a very sharp partisan divide, a growing recession, two wars going on, and he brought in a very idealistic utopian domestic agenda to build a huge legacy. Unfortunately, I think the priorities have been way out of whack, the admin has focused on legacy-builders which are encumbering or will encumber much more debt before we've really solved the existing issues.
You would think that someone of Zuckerman's obvious intelligence would grasp that the ship doesn't turn on a dime.
Quote from: nathanm on June 18, 2010, 04:55:46 PM
You would think that someone of Zuckerman's obvious intelligence would grasp that the ship doesn't turn on a dime.
Almost two years.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 07:26:55 PM
Almost two years.
Even the corporate world doesn't expect miracles from new CEOs in that short a time frame.
LBJ didn't get his entire agenda through Congress in his first two years either. Neither did Reagan or any other President. For some reason that seems to be what is expected of Obama.
Quote from: nathanm on June 18, 2010, 08:04:00 PM
Even the corporate world doesn't expect miracles from new CEOs in that short a time frame.
LBJ didn't get his entire agenda through Congress in his first two years either. Neither did Reagan or any other President. For some reason that seems to be what is expected of Obama.
Obama was/is a good campaigner, Hope & Change. It's been somewhat self inflicted. Goes with the territory.
You can hope in one hand and change in the other and see which fills up first.....
Hope is not a strategy.
But in fairness, Obama is not going to rest until the leak is stopped:
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 12:54:55 PM
Campaign promises aren't real.
(http://arclightzero.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pelosi2.jpg)
On either side....sad but true.
I just found it ironic that he used the exact same wording to describe himself- "fierce advocate"- again! Geez, if what he's displayed so far is fierce advocacy for the GLBT community I am scared to see what this administration's idea of complacency is....
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2010, 07:26:55 PM
Almost two years.
Oh come on, it's been a year and a half- hardly enough time to make any major changes, especially considering the mess he was handed.
I will admit that at some point however, this administration has to start owning up and taking charge. It would be interesting to see what could happen with another term. It is looking less and less likely that he will have that opportunity.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 19, 2010, 12:56:08 PM
Oh come on, it's been a year and a half- hardly enough time to make any major changes, especially considering the mess he was handed.
This is the downside to the civil service system. It is also the upside.
The Obama hypocrisy is unfreakin believable:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE65H45T20100619
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 19, 2010, 12:56:08 PM
Oh come on, it's been a year and a half- hardly enough time to make any major changes, especially considering the mess he was handed.
I will admit that at some point however, this administration has to start owning up and taking charge. It would be interesting to see what could happen with another term. It is looking less and less likely that he will have that opportunity.
As many analysts on both sides are now saying, without George Bush to point at and lavish blame on, President Obama is an empty vessel. The term "mess we inherited" has very little to do with current economic, foreign, and domestic crisis now. Blame was always his ace. Now he's left with a very poor hand.
He is snake-bit and ill equipped to manage the poison. Now we will see the most important people in his administration flee the ship before their political aspirations are dashed or they become the focus of the impending and inevitable scapgoatery.
This is a president who's very philosophy requires a focus of blame.
It's not my fault.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2010, 07:31:08 AM
As many analysts on both sides are now saying, without George Bush to point at and lavish blame on, President Obama is an empty vessel. The term "mess we inherited" has very little to do with current economic, foreign, and domestic crisis now. Blame was always his ace. Now he's left with a very poor hand.
He is snake-bit and ill equipped to manage the poison. Now we will see the most important people in his administration flee the ship before their political aspirations are dashed or they become the focus of the impending and inevitable scapgoatery.
This is a president who's very philosophy requires a focus of blame.
Puh-lease.
If a Democratic president had left such a huge mess after he left office for a Republican successor, would you be saying these same things?
I recall Ronald Reagan repeatedly blaming Jimmy Carter and Democrats (rightfully so) for many of the problems he inherited until the economy turned around in 1983. Would you have ripped Reagan for criticizing his predecessor?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
Puh-lease.
If a Democratic president had left such a huge mess after he left office for a Republican successor, would you be saying these same things?
I recall Ronald Reagan repeatedly blaming Jimmy Carter and Democrats (rightfully so) for many of the problems he inherited until the economy turned around in 1983. Would you have ripped Reagan for criticizing his predecessor?
That's like asking if the Pope is an Atheist...
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
Puh-lease.
If a Democratic president had left such a huge mess after he left office for a Republican successor, would you be saying these same things?
I recall Ronald Reagan repeatedly blaming Jimmy Carter and Democrats (rightfully so) for many of the problems he inherited until the economy turned around in 1983. Would you have ripped Reagan for criticizing his predecessor?
Better yet, instead of playing a little game of: "Would you be saying..." what can you point to which has shown leadership success on his part? If you remember correctly, Congress felt he was doing a crappy job at leading on HC reform. He's slowly
renegging on Afghanistan & Iraq, people are getting more and more upset with him over Israel, and the only job creation seems to be temporary census jobs with dubious figures like the jobs saved/created scam which suddenly became hard to enumerate then that count suddenly vanished.
I have no problem conceding he came into an unenviable economic environment but it was clear he was more interested in getting his legacy issues implimented instead of working on what Americans really needed which was jobs and some real hope. Unfortunately hope was just a catchy campaign slogan to someone who has been unemployed for 18 months.
I'm still waiting to see this magnificent leadership we were promised. It's been a disappointing wait. Please
Stupid iPhone.
Anyhow please point out some specific examples of great leadership on President Obama's part instead of telling how Reagan, Bush, or Clinton supposedly did it.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 08:54:46 AM
Stupid iPhone.
Anyhow please point out some specific examples of great leadership on President Obama's part instead of telling how Reagan, Bush, or Clinton supposedly did it.
Convincing BP to allow $20 billion worth of their compensation to be put into escrow and administered by a third party was pretty bold. ;)
Regarding your earlier jab about stimulus job numbers suddenly going away, you might want to double check that. There is a nice website run by the government that clearly states the number of jobs saved/created by the stimulus, in addition to detailing what projects are getting stimulus funding and how many jobs were associated with a particular grant of funds. The administration has been very transparent with this.
In Q1 2010, they calculate 682,370 jobs as a result of ARRA.
The numbers are updated quarterly, and the reporting period for Q1 closed a week or two ago. I believe the Q2 numbers will be released around September.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 08:54:46 AM
Stupid iPhone.
Anyhow please point out some specific examples of great leadership on President Obama's part instead of telling how Reagan, Bush, or Clinton supposedly did it.
I'd say helping shepherd health-care reform to passage after it looked like it was DOA is a substantial accomplishment. He obviously didn't do all the heavy lifting, but such big legislation is never a one-man job.
And I think getting BP to pony up $20 billion isn't chump, either. BP could've blown the whole thing off.
And letting Timothy Geithner do his job and greatly stabilizing the financial markets (instead of Obama caving in to shrill and non-prescient criticism) was vastly underrated. The Atlantic magazine had a good recounting of this a few months ago. The banking system woes could have gotten a LOT uglier.
http://www.aba-ws.org/PresidentObama.pdf
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
Puh-lease.
If a Democratic president had left such a huge mess after he left office for a Republican successor, would you be saying these same things?
I recall Ronald Reagan repeatedly blaming Jimmy Carter and Democrats (rightfully so) for many of the problems he inherited until the economy turned around in 1983. Would you have ripped Reagan for criticizing his predecessor?
That's a great example. During the campaign Reagan ripped Carter on policy, and rightfully so. Once in office he made very little mention of it. He just fixed it. He used simple proven economic principals. He allowed businesses to claim the rewards of capitalism, rather than punishing innovation and commerce.
In an interview after a year or two in office Reagan was asked about the unemployment rate and he did offer Carter's policies as the basis, but the numbers were already starting to turn and the economy was in a recovery cycle, so he really didn't need to keep Carter in the corner.
Regan too increased the deficit, but he did it through lowering the tax burden on Americans rather than on expansionism. These are two very different philosophies. Lowering the tax burden creates an immediate effect on the deficit, but over time it produces a return in productivity. Expansionism has a slow long term effect on the deficit and shows no return either immediate or long term. Expansionism is a social measure used to increase control by increasing dependence on government.
Don't get me wrong, both parties have been responsible for expansionist principals. We have simply gotten to the point where the freedom for expansionist principals have reached critical mass. 1/3 of the way into his term, President Obama and the Pelosi Congress have successfully overloaded the system. In doing so, they have not only taught the American People a valuable lesson, but they have caused severe damage to the liberal and progressive agenda. It will take several terms for people to forget.
Additionally, opportunities now exist for the fracture of existing political parties and the emergence of realistic, and less corrupt philosophies. Obama's one legacy from this term, may be opening the door for the birth of Reason in American politics.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
Regan too increased the deficit, but he did it through lowering the tax burden on Americans rather than on expansionism.
I guess it only counts as expansionism when you spend vast sums on shoring up the economy, not when you're effecting one of the largest expansions of the military budget in US history. Sorry, Reagan and Bush the Younger both cut taxes and drastically expanded the budget. Nice try on the revisionism there, though!
Hard data:
Revenues Outlays
1979 463.3 504.0
1980 517.1 590.9
1981 599.3 678.2
1982 617.8 745.7
1983 600.6 808.4
1984 666.4 851.8
1985 734.0 946.3
1986 769.2 990.4
1987 854.3 1,004.0
1988 909.2 1,064.4
1989 991.1 1,143.7
Edited to add: Also, please provide support for your contention that the system has been "overloaded." The government's cost of borrowing is still exceptionally low. As I've mentioned before, these kinds of deficits can't run on for more than another year or two before it might become an issue, but they won't run on like that, given that ARRA spending only goes on for another year or two (and at reduced levels compared to this year and last) and the budgetary effects of TARP should be winding down pretty soon also.
I'm trying to understand where this doomsday scenario of being totally tapped out comes from. There's simply no evidence for it.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
Don't get me wrong, both parties have been responsible for expansionist principals. We have simply gotten to the point where the freedom for expansionist principals have reached critical mass. 1/3 of the way into his term, President Obama and the Pelosi Congress have successfully overloaded the system. In doing so, they have not only taught the American People a valuable lesson, but they have caused severe damage to the liberal and progressive agenda. It will take several terms for people to forget.
You didn't answer the question.
If a Democratic president had left such a huge mess after he left office for a Republican successor, would you have been critical of a Republican president bringing these things up?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 09:19:11 AM
You didn't answer the question.
If a Democratic president had left such a huge mess after he left office for a Republican successor, would you have been critical of a Republican president bringing these things up?
Of course! I'm not a member of either party. It has nothing to do with political party. Each time a leader responds with blame, it represents an excuse rather than a solution.
Excuses are a way to skirt an issue rather than dealing with it. I find it akin to saying "that's not my job."
By claiming that something is not your fault, you give up control over the situation. Furthermore it gives some unscrupulous politicians a platform to take liberties in decision making that adds fuel to the fire (never let a crisis go to waste).
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2010, 09:48:50 AM
Of course! I'm not a member of either party. It has nothing to do with political party.
Your answer does not persuade, given your history on this forum.
Excuses are the currency of those without sound reasons.
I'm not giving President Obama enough credit here. I just read in USA Today that he's made the laudable goal of landing humans on an asteroid up to 5mm miles away by 2025 after shitcanning Bush 43's $9 bln moon boondoggle.
Now that's sound leadership we can believe in.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 09:58:18 AM
Excuses are the currency of those without sound reasons.
I'm not giving President Obama enough credit here. I just read in USA Today that he's made the laudable goal of landing humans on an asteroid up to 5mm miles away by 2025 after shitcanning Bush 43's $9 bln moon boondoggle.
Now that's sound leadership we can believe in.
I suppose we better re-elect him then.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2010, 10:00:42 AM
I suppose we better re-elect him then.
He's definitely got my vote. I'll even take back all my comments on his impotent leadership style now.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 10:07:53 AM
He's definitely got my vote. I'll even take back all my comments on his impotent leadership style now.
I can't wait to see who the GOP puts up to go against him. If things are continuing the way they are, it'll be Rand Paul.
In other words, Conan, your choices may be a smile sandwich or stark raving insanity.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 09:55:48 AM
Your answer does not persuade, given your history on this forum.
And I love how the punches are always aimed at just one party.....while claiming no affiliation to either.
That is a typical trait of the liberpubliteaparty folks.
Quote from: we vs us on June 21, 2010, 11:31:17 AM
I can't wait to see who the GOP puts up to go against him. If things are continuing the way they are, it'll be Rand Paul.
In other words, Conan, your choices may be a smile sandwich or stark raving insanity.
are you trying to make me dependent on sleeping meds and anti-depressants?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 01:12:17 PM
are you trying to make me dependent on sleeping meds and anti-depressants?
Washed down with a delicious Jamoke or three. Yes, yes I am.
Quote from: we vs us on June 21, 2010, 11:31:17 AM
I can't wait to see who the GOP puts up to go against him. If things are continuing the way they are, it'll be Rand Paul.
In other words, Conan, your choices may be a smile sandwich or stark raving insanity.
That's a good question. I don't know who they could reasonably put up.
I think it will be more interesting to see how the Dems attempt to transplant Hillary back into the race as VP. I think at this point that's inevitable. They need her in that position (win or lose) for the 2016 race. Biden has nothing to offer as a presidential candidate in 2016, he's just a politician (and proud of it).
It also looks like the pendulum in congress will swing dramatically. Some of the damage can be diminished or avoided, but recovery is going to be a long ways off. I like the fact that candidates on both the Repub and Dem side are vowing fiscal conservativism. That's a great start, but it will take a long time and some serious amputations to get this body healthy again. They will have to battle an executive that has no fiscal restraint whatsoever. Should be quite a fight.
I had no idea that we would be hearing the mighty flushing sound so early.
At the risk of sounding like a Palin basher, I seriously hope she doesn't wind up on a ticket. I honestly don't see how she could be the POTUS nominee, but the GOP has found worse ways to shoot itself in the foot in the past.
I like her and admire her, but she's got no business anywhere near the White House other than visiting or perhaps in some sort of advisory position.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 21, 2010, 12:19:31 PM
And I love how the punches are always aimed at just one party.....while claiming no affiliation to either.
That is a typical trait of the liberpubliteaparty folks.
I think the term you're looking for is "glibertarian."
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 04:00:00 PM
At the risk of sounding like a Palin basher, I seriously hope she doesn't wind up on a ticket. I honestly don't see how she could be the POTUS nominee, but the GOP has found worse ways to shoot itself in the foot in the past.
I like her and admire her, but she's got no business anywhere near the White House other than visiting or perhaps in some sort of advisory position.
And what would she advise? What's her strength?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 04:06:46 PM
And what would she advise? What's her strength?
Bear huntin!
She could be the Bear huntin Czar.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 04:06:46 PM
And what would she advise? What's her strength?
She could be the ambassador to Siberia, she once quit as Governor of a state that was close enough to throw moose poop at it ya know.
I kept running through all the GOP guys that have name recognition or a snowball's chance in hell of garnering any votes at all and she was the only person I could come up with.
I mean, there's Tim Pawlenty, for instance, but he's waaaay too moderate and would get mauled by the Tea Partiers without a major (and unconvincing) shift to the right.
Jindahl's pretty weak sauce, too, as is Mitt. Unless there's a silent middle to the GOP, the people running the show are the Tea Partiers and whackjobs like Barton who think that we should be apologizing to BP for the inconvenience of establishing a reparations fund. Unless something unforseen happens, this above all is what will guarantee Obama a second term. He may or may not be successful but he's the only sane one in the room.
Quote from: we vs us on June 21, 2010, 04:33:55 PM
I kept running through all the GOP guys that have name recognition or a snowball's chance in hell of garnering any votes at all and she was the only person I could come up with.
I mean, there's Tim Pawlenty, for instance, but he's waaaay too moderate and would get mauled by the Tea Partiers without a major (and unconvincing) shift to the right.
Jindahl's pretty weak sauce, too, as is Mitt. Unless there's a silent middle to the GOP, the people running the show are the Tea Partiers and whackjobs like Barton who think that we should be apologizing to BP for the inconvenience of establishing a reparations fund. Unless something unforseen happens, this above all is what will guarantee Obama a second term. He may or may not be successful but he's the only sane one in the room.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Huckabee, who's probably the strongest of the bunch.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 04:50:53 PM
I'm surprised you didn't mention Huckabee, who's probably the strongest of the bunch.
Oooo, I forgot about him. You're right, he's got some strong bona fides. I'm going to have to put him on my betting card.
Jindahl could come out of this spill looking pretty damn good as a proven leader. He would be able to go toe-to-toe with President Obama in a comparison/contrast Of true leadership and problem-solving on a major crisis. He can also honestly speak of a large and deft Federal Govt which tied his hands and must be pruned. That plays right to the Tea Partiers. You can point to Giuliani as a failure in parlaying 911 into the Presidency, but he wasn't quite "conservative enough".
We should already be hearing some other name-dropping coming up soon as they will start campaigning right after MT 2010.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 05:46:26 PM
He can also honestly speak of a large and deft Federal Govt which tied his hands and must be pruned.
Deft? You, of all people, calling the federal government deft? As in skillful and dexterous? ???
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2010, 05:46:26 PM
Jindahl could come out of this spill looking pretty damn good as a proven leader. He would be able to go toe-to-toe with President Obama in a comparison/contrast Of true leadership and problem-solving on a major crisis. He can also honestly speak of a large and deft Federal Govt which tied his hands and must be pruned. That plays right to the Tea Partiers. You can point to Giuliani as a failure in parlaying 911 into the Presidency, but he wasn't quite "conservative enough".
We should already be hearing some other name-dropping coming up soon as they will start campaigning right after MT 2010.
On an aside, I'm not sure what the hell the Tea Partiers stand for. If they really wanted smaller government, then they wouldn't shout "Hands off my Medicare" and other such head-scratchers at rallies.
I think they maybe want smaller government, but only with programs that don't affect them. That's not exactly what I would call sound fiscal policy -- especially when entitlements and defense are the big bugaboos in the budget.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 21, 2010, 04:50:53 PM
I'm surprised you didn't mention Huckabee, who's probably the strongest of the bunch.
It's unfortunate he's such a troglodyte when it comes to women's rights and gay rights. Otherwise, he's a pretty decent fellow. When he was governor in Arkansas he pulled a Bush the Elder and significantly raised taxes when it became necessary.
Don't forget - Reagan raised taxes 3 times after he cut them once. Then Bush I raised them (twice, I think). Billy Bob raised them once - small one.
Also, they were slavering over Carter for 28 years. Unjustified, of course, but didn't stop the lies and BS. All the problems that came about in the late '70s actually started during Ford's last year or so and directly caused by wage and price controls put in place by Nixon. Just exactly like the effect that wage and price controls had after WWII in roughly 46 to 48. Gotta know the history! Classic reason why ya don't stop at 1983 for "going back" in history.
And isn't amazing how in mid January 1981 we had 15% inflation? And then 2 weeks later Reagan's guys claimed it had already improved to 6%. They changed the way it was calculated. It was the same 15%, just "adjusted" for inflation.
Kind of like how Bush II supposedly "only" had 300 and 400 billion deficits. Well, when Obama got in, he stopped leaving ALL the supplemental war appropriations off budget for deficit calculations. (Still fell to the bottom line of debt, but made it look like the deficits were smaller than reality.) When you add all those off budget supplementals, it ain't that much more now than then.
But telling the truth wouldn't keep Bush "in the game", so to speak.