Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[AEON]

Some will say Obama was obstructed. Other will say he was simply ineffective at winning support.

The fact is - he's paralyzed. At home and abroad.

In any group of decision makers - whether it is business, politics, or cub scouts on a camp out - a leader can build consensus and get things accomplished. I think Clinton's second term is usually held out as an example of this.

 

[AEON]

But "pop culture" doesn't drive policy nor does it have the ability to block bills or block judicial nominations.

True - but "pop culture" does heavily influence voters...especially the younger ones.

 

[Irvine511]

There was no internet in the 70's or 80's but the distain for Nixon and Reagan in the media, pop culture ant the opposition party was obvious. Maybe you need to listen to some old U2 bootlegs with the Ronald Raygun rants.

so you agree -- no president has faced such unhinged opposition before. certainly you agree that the internet has given a new ability for people to surround themselves with only information that is comforting to them leads to increased stratification and ossification of political position. it can happen on the left and the right, but it is self-evident that the right wing information architecture is much, much more sophisticated and entrenched (and profitable) than on the left, and has been since the 1990s. there are simply no left voices that have the power of Rush and Hannity and Fox News. one could counter that, 1) MSNBC is just as bad (which they might be in terms of content, but they have much lower viewership and the left has virtually no presence on talk radio), or, 2) the NYT the WaPo the LAT and NPR and CNN are all liberal, which is simply untrue. further, the effect of calling something that isn't explicitly Right to be by definition Left pulls all discourse to the Right, and when you have a genuine cockup like the ACA website, the actual neutral voices leap to prove they aren't lapdogs. again, everything is pulled to the Right.

And show me a statement by a conservative major media person about Barack Obama that comes close to what Martin Bashir said about Sarah Palin last week on MSNBC.

i agree it was stupid and disgusting. i also agree that Martin Bashir is virtually unknown, has also apologized, and Sarah Palin is now a private figure making money off selling books after dropping out of the governorship after half a term.

if you'd like me to dig through statements on Obama from Rush and Michael Savage and Alex Jones and Orly Taitz, or any other number of Tea Party leaders, i can, but i don't have time for that.

To any neutral observer, this has been (and will probably continue to be) a weak presidency.

come on. you're doing exactly what you're complaining about others doing.

You are absolutely correct. Finding a neutral observer is getting very difficult these days.

a great place to start would be to avoid articles written by the Daily Mail, the Daily Caller, and the Washington Times.

Why is this even being brought up as the equivalent of a Congress which has factually been shown to be obstructive?

it's because people who say they want facts don't really want facts. they want to feel good about themselves, either through validation or self-righteousness or the sense that my "team" is winning. look at INDY's earlier post about Obama's approval ratings.

Has a political party ever openly stated that their sole goal was to block legislation in order to win the next election? I'm curious, because it seems unprecedented.

another fact.

 

[Irvine511]

The fact is - he's paralyzed. At home and abroad.

show me facts that back this up. paralyzed at home and abroad? to what are you referring?

(as an aside, it seems we've made significant progress in Syria and with Iran and containing Bibi, all good things)

 

[Irvine511]

True - but "pop culture" does heavily influence voters...especially the younger ones.

and business schools and churches and country music and the conservative media entertainment complex have a heavy influence as well.

many movies and TV shows are more conservative than you think. take the History Channel -- it plays to a conservative, male audience. the most popular show on cable TV is Duck Dynasty, also conservative.

popular culture has one purpose: to make money. you don't make money when you make your audience feel badly about themselves or their country or their history. so traditional narratives about upward social mobility, racial tolerance, and overall American "righteousness" are reinforced creating what is an overall comforting, nostalgic and therefore conservative view of the past and the present.

money is made for a handful of companies that are owned and operated by conservatives, who then use their influence to buy and sell politicians who make it easier and easier for them to make money.

 

[AEON]

show me facts that back this up. paralyzed at home and abroad? to what are you referring?

You can use the facts that were posted above. The lack of getting things passed is what I consider a paralyzed president.

Also - Obama took quite a beating in the mainstream press for his handling of Syria. Perhaps it is inaccurate to say he's paralyzed abroad - because we really have no idea what he's trying to do.

When I think of leadership - I think of what I learned in Officer Candidate School. In order to lead - you must be able to provide Purpose, Direction, and Motivation. Would you say that Obama has provided these things to the average American citizen? Maybe (and I mean maybe) he provided the first two with ACA, but certainly not the third.

 

[Irvine511]

You can use the facts that were posted above. The lack of getting things passed is what I consider a paralyzed president.

so it's Obama's fault the GOP is obstructionist? isn't that like blaming the victim? there are several branches of government, and the president isn't a king. i don't think you want to fall into the mindset where you start blaming things like the shutdown on Obama.

 

[AEON]

so it's Obama's fault the GOP is obstructionist? isn't that like blaming the victim? there are several branches of government, and the president isn't a king. i don't think you want to fall into the mindset where you start blaming things like the shutdown on Obama.

I don't think the GOP could pull off the obstructionist game if Obama was better at convincing the American People of his vision.

I agree - the president is not a king. However, when the people believe that their president is intelligent and competent, things get done. Obama does not come across as intelligent (in general yes - but not for such an important position) and has not demonstrated competence in any meaningful way (other than the OBL strike).

Also, another way to work with those obstructing your political path...compromise

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think the GOP could pull off the obstructionist game if Obama was better at convincing the American People of his vision.

I agree - the president is not a king. However, when the people believe that their president is intelligent and competent, things get done. Obama does not come across as intelligent (in general yes - but not for such an important position) and has not demonstrated competence in any meaningful way (other than the OBL strike).

i'm sorry but, objectively, you're simply wrong. if anything, the criticism against Obama is that he's too smart -- too professorial, too aloof, too much of an intellectual.

as for competency, aside from winning two elections, his accomplishments are numerous. just to name a few:

1. passed health care
2. passed wall street reform
3. bailed out the auto industry
4. repealed DADT
5. passed the stimulus
6. ended the war in Iraq
7. drawdown in Afghanistan
8. killed OBL
9. recapitalized banks
10. toppled Gaddafi
11. ended torture
12. improved our image abroad
13. tightened sanctions on Iran
14. new START treaty
15. expanded hate crimes protections


now you may not agree with the merits of these accomplishments, or think they are bad things, but we can't argue that these are accomplishments. in the way that i think the Bush tax cuts are bad, they are, nonetheless, an accomplishment.

does that make sense? you're really conflating your opinions on what happened with the fact that something has actually happened.

i'd argue that what's so bad about the rollout of the ACA is that it's the first time Obama's actual competency has been called into question. that's his chief challenge right now.

Also, another way to work with those obstructing your political path...compromise.

taking just the ACA alone ... it is a compromise. it's a republican idea implemented by a republican governor. the public option was dropped. Obama's critics on the Left think he's far too accommodating of the GOP.

 

[Diemen]

Also, another way to work with those obstructing your political path...compromise

Irvine already responded to your first two points quite well, but just to follow up on this. I see plenty of claims that Obama doesn't compromise, or is "ramming things down our throats" or acting by executive fiat only, but that just doesn't quite mesh with reality. Prior to the government shutdown, Obama and the Democrats made a huge compromise by agreeing to the Republican proposed budget numbers, numbers that were significantly below both Democrat proposals and even the Paul Ryan budget of last year. The ACA, as Irvine pointed out, was originally a Republican idea. One that was implemented rather successfully and touted as a significant achievement by Mitt Romney (until he realized he'd be better politically served to pretend it never happened). And it certainly didn't pass into law in its original state without any changes due to compromise.

 

[AEON]

Irvine already responded to your first two points quite well, but just to follow up on this. I see plenty of claims that Obama doesn't compromise, or is "ramming things down our throats" or acting by executive fiat only, but that just doesn't quite mesh with reality. Prior to the government shutdown, Obama and the Democrats made a huge compromise by agreeing to the Republican proposed budget numbers, numbers that were significantly below both Democrat proposals and even the Paul Ryan budget of last year. The ACA, as Irvine pointed out, was originally a Republican idea. One that was implemented rather successfully and touted as a significant achievement by Mitt Romney (until he realized he'd be better politically served to pretend it never happened). And it certainly didn't pass into law in its original state without any changes due to compromise.

Well - I guess we will have to leave it to the historians. If you guys think he's been awesome, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

 

[Irvine511]

Well - I guess we will have to leave it to the historians. If you guys think he's been awesome, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

That's pretty reductionist, don't you think? I really did spend some time today responding.

I will reiterate my main point.

I'm less concerned with whether or not Obama has brought about good policy than I am with the fact that for a segment of the population ANY policy he advocates will bring about the collapse of American civilization. It's the hysteria and moreover sheer anger that baffles me. You can say that it was bad with Bush 2, and I'd agree to an extent, but the difference is that ears were going in and people were getting killed and being tortured.

Obama is so calm and centrist and almost boring that I'm rather astonished at the vitriol. My big hope was that he would help us get beyond the Baby Boom cultural fault lines that were created during Vietnam. He hasn't succeeded. But that's not for lack of effort.

All that said, my life is better now than it was in 2008. I can get married, I have employer subsidized health care, I have a mortgage at a great rate in a city that gets better by the month, and my portfolio is doing well. While not all of those things are due to Obama, why would I not think he's pretty good?

 

[Diemen]

Well - I guess we will have to leave it to the historians. If you guys think he's been awesome, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

I don't understand this binary way of viewing things. Has anyone here said he's been just awesome? There's a whole range of choices in between awesome and ineffectual weakling. I think saying "he's not a disaster" or "he actually has demonstrated he's intelligent and has shown competency in several meaningful ways" is quite a bit different than "he's awesome and can do no wrong!"

 

[AEON]

That's pretty reductionist, don't you think? I really did spend some time today responding.

True. I apologize. My free time for the afternoon is running out. I will try to respond as best I can later (unless someone beats me to it). Your posts above do deserve more of a response.

 

[anitram]

Also, another way to work with those obstructing your political path...compromise

With people who have openly declared that they will make his healthcare act his Waterloo?

As for him being not intelligent enough, well that's a new one. I think that he's as intelligent as Bill Clinton, the difference is that he's an academic intelligent person whereas Bill Clinton was more intelligent in an EQ sense.

 

[INDY500]

... his accomplishments are numerous. just to name a few:

1. passed health care
2. passed wall street reform
3. bailed out the auto industry
4. repealed DADT
5. passed the stimulus
6.
7. drawdown in Afghanistan
8.
9. recapitalized banks
10. toppled Gaddafi
11. ended torture
12. improved our image abroad
13. tightened sanctions on Iran
14. new START treaty
15. expanded hate crimes protections

If these are "accomplishments" I will give thanks next Thursday for the "anarchists" and "obstructionists" in Congress.

\

 

[Irvine511]

So you love torture and hate gay soldiers.

This proves my points exactly.

 

[AEON]

i'm sorry but, objectively, you're simply wrong. if anything, the criticism against Obama is that he's too smart -- too professorial, too aloof, too much of an intellectual.

The man seems utterly incapable of speaking unless he's on script. He struggles for words (just count how many ummms you hear in the interviews) and rambles into incoherence. This is going to sound terrible - but I think that if he was white, we would not hear statements that he was "professorial" and "aloof" - but simply dumb.

as for competency, aside from winning two elections, his accomplishments are numerous. just to name a few:

1. passed health care
2. passed wall street reform
3. bailed out the auto industry
4. repealed DADT
5. passed the stimulus
6. ended the war in Iraq
7. drawdown in Afghanistan
8. killed OBL
9. recapitalized banks
10. toppled Gaddafi
11. ended torture
12. improved our image abroad
13. tightened sanctions on Iran
14. new START treaty
15. expanded hate crimes protections


now you may not agree with the merits of these accomplishments, or think they are bad things, but we can't argue that these are accomplishments. in the way that i think the Bush tax cuts are bad, they are, nonetheless, an accomplishment.

There are some good ones in there. I did not say his presidency was a complete disaster, only that it will be considered weak.

does that make sense? you're really conflating your opinions on what happened with the fact that something has actually happened.

That's always possible. But lately it seems Obama is becoming a nightly punchline for John Steward - not a good sign.

i'd argue that what's so bad about the rollout of the ACA is that it's the first time Obama's actual competency has been called into question. that's his chief challenge right now.

And it's a big one - since it is his "signature" reform.

There has been a definite turn in the attitude of the mainstream press these last few months. The press conferences are getting more hostile (they're tired of the same excuses and back peddling.)

And Obamacare is not his only disaster. His lack of the control on the NSA has definitely eroded support from the twentysomethings (just go into reddit and see what the precailing attitude is). His back peddling on Syria and mishandling of the Benghazi incident certainly lost him some fans in the international affairs arena.

 

[AEON]

So you love torture and hate gay soldiers.

This proves my points exactly.

I don't think he said that.

 

[AEON]

With people who have openly declared that they will make his healthcare act his Waterloo?

People can "declare" anything they want. Waterloo can only be Waterloo if Napoleon loses. And regarding the apparent loss on ACA - Obama will only have his lack of leadership to blame. You know - leadership goes both ways folks. You can't take all credit for success - yet, pass the blame on "obstruction" for all failures.

As for him being not intelligent enough, well that's a new one. I think that he's as intelligent as Bill Clinton, the difference is that he's an academic intelligent person whereas Bill Clinton was more intelligent in an EQ sense.

When I think of academic intelligent I think of Bernanke and Petreus. Unlike them and any number of public figures with advanced degrees from Ivy League schools - Obama has not demonstrated a keen understanding of history, philosophy, law, economics, literature, science...or, anything "academic." Also - Greenspan said Clinton was the brightest president he worked with (dating back to Ford) - combined with that high EQ score, perhaps we can see why Clinton is still popular today. Also - wasn't Clinton a Rhodes Scholar?

 

[deep]

breakthrough on Iran nuclear deal

they should give Obama the Noble Peace Prize

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sure it was by accident.

 

[nbcrusader]

Agree with me or you love torture and hate gay soldiers? The absurdist reduction argument does come in handy I suppose. The list of “accomplishments” has almost a Pelosi-like spin, with many representing bloated legislation or enormous government spending.

 

[Irvine511]

Agree with me or you love torture and hate gay soldiers? The absurdist reduction argument does come in handy I suppose.

your posts have a very interesting way of accusing others of what you are exactly doing in that post itself.

if you'll go back and read, INDY carefully removed #6 (ended Iraq) and #8 (killed OBL), and left the rest.

left on that list of Obama's accomplishments was the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, and torture.

it is entirely reasonable to think that INDY hates gay soldiers -- he would prefer them to have to lie in order to serve -- and that he endorses the Bush/Cheney regime torture techniques like waterboading and other illegal "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used (and proved ineffective).

so, as you see, it's not "agree with me, or else ..." as you have implied. please, in the future, it would be great if you could not distort what i've posted.

as i said repeatedly, you can dismiss -- as you did -- the merits of these accomplishments, and believe that we would have been better off taking a different course of action (allowing a 2nd great depression, collapse of the auto industry, retaining the most inefficient health care system in the world, firing servicemen fluent in Arabic and Farsi for being gay), and that's all legitimate.

what isn't legitimate was AEON's contention that Obama hasn't done anything but kill OBL. (he's also decimated Al Qaeda). that's what prompted the (very quickly thrown together) list.

you've made your your fundamentalist views on government spending and government in general very clear, and i'm sure that's why you would take issue with what parts of Obama's agenda (though i don't remember much worry about you about the $1T Iraq War or Medicaid D or the deficits of the Bush years ... but there was a lot going on so i'm sure it was just an oversight and you were always concerned about the overspending when the GOP controlled all branches of government from 2001-2007 while they lowered taxes).

but to say that Obama hasn't done anything is false.

and we can now add this enormous breakthrough with Iran to the list. at a minimum, we can all give that a

 

[BEAL]

Seriously, how anyone can state Obama hasn't had success in foreign policy is just nuts.

Ghadafi is gone.
Syria to give up chemical weapons
Iran nuclear deal.

Now, none of this means that region will stabilize or worse things can happen, but we didn't lose any American soldiers lives and we used diplomacy instead of bombing everything.

We could end up right back to where we are now (war as option) but at least we tried other options

 

[AEON]

I agree - the Iran nuclear deal is a BIG win if it holds up.

 

[BEAL]

Worst case we are back to where we are now.

 

[INDY500]

your posts have a very interesting way of accusing others of what you are exactly doing in that post itself.

if you'll go back and read, INDY carefully removed #6 (ended Iraq) and #8 (killed OBL), and left the rest.

left on that list of Obama's accomplishments was the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, and torture.

it is entirely reasonable to think that INDY hates gay soldiers -- he would prefer them to have to lie in order to serve --

Or he would prefer to side with those in the military that oppose its repeal. Or do they all hate gays too?

and that he endorses the Bush/Cheney regime torture techniques like waterboading and other illegal "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used (and proved ineffective).

And I prefer to side with those that say we gained a great deal of intel from the enhanced interrogation of a few select enemy combatants. Torture is your word for this not mine, if I thought we were truly torturing people I'd be against it also.

Besides, you still haven't explained how water-boarding (under medical supervision and congressional oversight) is more vile and inhumane than being atomized by a drone missile.

 

[INDY500]

So you love torture and hate gay soldiers.

And torturing gay soldiers above all.

This proves my points exactly.[/QUOTE]

Back at u.

 

[INDY500]

Worst case we are back to where we are now.

Not really because we'd be 6 months closer to a world with Atomic Mullahs.

Why should we trust the world's most involved state sponsor of terrorism again?