Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[deep]

leave me out of it

[corianderstem]

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

FYM posters that so gleefully noted each drop in GWB's poll numbers now seem mysteriously silent.

it's interesting, i spent some time going back and reading some old FYM threads recently, and what struck me is how wrong conservative posters have been. consistently, throughly, wrong -- both on the substance as well as the conventional wisdom -- on subjects as varied as:

1. same-sex marriage
2. the Iraq War
3. the 2008 election
4. the 2012 election
5. torture
6. Sarah Palin


i'm willing to bet you're going to be wrong about the ACA as well.

no one is claiming it's perfect, in fact, most of us have offered criticisms that are, indeed, warranted (something i never see you offer on any of the above subjects).

but given the enormous popularity of individual provisions within the act, the robust numbers the state exchanges are doing, and the fact that this is the first real attempt to deal with the real threat to our long term financial health (health care costs) and you have nothing alternative to offer, i think history is going to side with us once again.

thanks to the ACA, for the first time in my life, my employer is offering me health care. this will save me over a thousand dollars a year, and i'm going to put that money towards my upcoming same-sex wedding.

there's some glee for you.

[Irvine511]

The only ther thing I'll add is that Bush's poll numbers dropped because people died. They died in Iraq and they died in Afghanistan and they died in New Orleans. They died because of the choices of the Bush administration. Or they were tortured. The "glee" you might have seen was because we were hopeful that it might help Bush change course from policies that resulted in mass death and torture.

Your glee comes from a poorly functioning website that was designed with the intention of assisting the purchase of health insurance in states where they have been denied such access by their very own governors. Just think about that for a moment.

[U2DMfan]

If I wanted to spin this positively for Obama's legacy, I'd mention that it could all easily turn around. This is possibly a shorter-term issue that MIGHT turn into a long-term issue.

We don't know yet.

While there's no turning around the GWB nightmare, even now or when it happened.

And pretty much anyone with a lick of sense, liberal, conservative, libertarian, all shades in between, realizes this now. It's not as if the "GWB is a moron" crowd were proven wrong. We were fucking vindicated. I knew he was a moron before he became President. John McCain in 2000 was the last Republican I supported for President. And probably will be the last, unless things change dramatically.

Look, Obama might be a bad President, we shall see how things ultimately work out, but he's already better than Bush. By a long, long stretch. The fact that people 'cheerleaded' while his approval ratings dropped was nothing more than a fanbase in sports that already knows the coach needs to be fired. There's a certain element of glee in the misery. Only because its so painfully obvious, it moves from sad to amusing.

Well, only amusing when not counting the parts where people's lives were wrecked because of the incurious Decider in the White House.

[AEON]

No - I think President Obama will be considered a rather weak president. He won't be considered as poor as GW, but he's not that far behind.

Just a few things to consider:

His inability to speak off script or to get consensus on...anything - makes it difficult for more than the die hard fans to get behind him.

The economy has not improved much (if it all) for "Main Street" - and it's unlikely we'll see a huge recovery in the next few years. The people and historians usually hold the president responsible for the overall health of the economy (see Reagan and Clinton).

His signature legislation, ACA, is a colossal Charlie-Foxtrot (and not very popular).

Under his watch the NSA got out of control, Iraq war just sort of faded away, and the Afghanistan war now seems it will go on...forever.

His use of drones is really only supported by the NeoCons.

His seemed weak in response to Syria.

His poll numbers will more than likely float around here until he leaves office. Hillary will blast his policies in order to distance herself - thus cementing the fact that even Democrats won't consider this a "great" presidency.

[Pearl]

I think the problem with Obama is that he was so overhyped. In 2008, many people - even some here in FYM - gushed over him, saying he inspired them. I knew many who really believed that he would end the bipartisan tension in this country and some went so far as to say he will practically bring world peace. I mean, I knew a Korean-American who truly hoped Obama would unite the two Koreas. What silliness! It was like he was a messiah of some sort.

He's a politician. All politicians bullshit, to put it frankly. They learn the art of PR, or someone else does a good job for them, and since many people are gullible, they believe their bull. Politicians aren't really that interested in taking care of the people. They care about their own ideology - no matter what it is - and they want to promote it and make it work in their vision of society. And the only way to get this to happen to be hired by voters. Since many voters aren't aware about what politics is really about, they're easy to manipulate and trick. And that is all politicians. Few of them really want to serve the people. Those who do are eaten alive by their peers.

[digitize]

I think that many here will agree with this article: The presidency: Whoops | The Economist

The Economist backs Obama on most things, and their criticism rings true for me as someone who generally sides with Obama as well.

[Irvine511]

It's a good article.

This bears repeating:

Republicans in Congress have voted more than 40 times to kill Obamacare. Most Republican governors have tried to block it. Rick Scott, Florida’s governor, banned workers signing up the uninsured from using government offices in his state. Missouri and Ohio hampered the dissemination of information about Obamacare. The insurance commissioner of Georgia has said “we are doing everything in our power” to obstruct it. Since the maps of where uninsured Americans live and where Republicans are elected are almost the same, the federal government had to take more responsibility and build a bigger system than it had anticipated.

It is difficult to be an effective manager when one political party only cares about your destruction, and could care less about actually governing.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

It is difficult to be an effective manager when one political party only cares about your destruction-

That really is a poor excuse. Seriously. Every president deals with this.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

That really is a poor excuse. Seriously. Every president deals with this.

I was having this conversation with an office holder friend of mine; party line people vote party line because that's what they've always done. And if the other guy wins, they're upset but they move on. But every once in awhile a certain issue will come up and the vitriol will fly. Never have I seen this hatred start before the man took office. Reagan divided, Clinton divided, Bush number 2 really divided, but it was over issues. BUT after the Bush 2 division things got ugly. He said he's never seen it like this, and he's been a player since Reagan(and a big time Reagan supporter).

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

I was having this conversation with an office holder friend of mine; party line people vote party line because that's what they've always done. And if the other guy wins, they're upset but they move on. But every once in awhile a certain issue will come up and the vitriol will fly. Never have I seen this hatred start before the man took office. Reagan divided, Clinton divided, Bush number 2 really divided, but it was over issues. BUT after the Bush 2 division things got ugly. He said he's never seen it like this, and he's been a player since Reagan(and a big time Reagan supporter).

Reagan - maybe you're right. Perhaps his personality and ability to work with the Dems should be be considered a factor.

Bush Sr. - was actually popular until the year before the election.

Clinton - he was hated by the right (he was impeached for goodness sake!). Yet, somehow - he was able to get the economy going by working with a Republican House and Senate. Perhaps his personality and ability to work with the Republicans should be be considered a factor.

And GW - he was derided and made fun of constantly. Much worse than Obama. Bush II did have some bi-partisan support after 9/11 - but it slowly turned into cries of "Bush lied! Traitor! Terrorist!"

After reading "Team of Rivals" (about Lincoln and his presidency) a few years back, I'm fairly convinced it's always been like this more or less. The only difference now is that we don't have to walk down to the town green to hear this crap - it comes directly into our house.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

Reagan - maybe you're right. Perhaps his personality and ability to work with the Dems should be be considered a factor.

Bush Sr. - was actually popular until the year before the election.

Clinton - he was hated by the right (he was impeached for goodness sake!). Yet, somehow - he was able to get the economy going by working with a Republican House and Senate. Perhaps his personality and ability to work with the Republicans should be be considered a factor.

And GW - he was derided and made fun of constantly. Much worse than Obama. Bush II did have some bi-partisan support after 9/11 - but it slowly turned into cries of "Bush lied! Traitor! Terrorist!"

After reading "Team of Rivals" (about Lincoln and his presidency) a few years back, I'm fairly convinced it's always been like this more or less. The only difference now is that we don't have to walk down to the town green to hear this crap - it comes directly into our house.

ALL happen once they were in office. That should tell you something.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

That really is a poor excuse. Seriously. Every president deals with this.

Wrong. Not like this.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

It's a good article. This bears repeating: It is difficult to be an effective manager when one political party only cares about your destruction, and could care less about actually governing.

Obama does face a very unique set of challenges out of the GOP.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Wrong. Not like this.

I think you're forgetting how much hatred and vitriol there was during the GW years. Bush was the butt of jokes on a nightly basis and protesters demanding he be arrested for war crimes. Ironically, by the end of the second term - the only people that liked Bush were the men and women in the Armed Forces.

Sorry - I won't concede that Obama has had it worse.

[anitram]

AEON - you don't have to concede it but that doesn't mean that you're right. There are a lot of objective data out there to support the notion that this is the most divided Congress of all time, which manifests itself, as just one example, in blocking Obama's nominees in unprecedented numbers. You can find this information - statistics and numbers, not subjective junk.

One good place is voteview.com.

For example:



Another good one:



Cloture motions:

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I think you're forgetting how much hatred and vitriol there was during the GW years. Bush was the butt of jokes on a nightly basis and protesters demanding he be arrested for war crimes. Ironically, by the end of the second term - the only people that liked Bush were the men and women in the Armed Forces.

Sorry - I won't concede that Obama has had it worse.

i'm sure you won't. that would mean admitting that the two parties aren't the same.

they aren't.

and that's not love for the Democrats. but it is an acknowledgement that the GOP in DC has quite literally gone crazy.

you could point to several GOP governors who are actually doing a decent job in their own states, but as a national political party they have become little more than a protest movement.

[AEON]

The parties are the same to me because politicians are the same to me - the bottom of the barrel of our society.

Yes - it could be said Obama is having a difficult time because of a divided congress. IT could also be said because of Obama the congress is more divided. Either way, I think it is obvious that Obama is not an effective leader.

[anitram]

I think politicians aren't all the same. There are always a few exceptions. And probably most of them arrive on the scene quite different than what they are like 20 years later.

Desperately needed are (i) term limits and (ii) prohibitions on serving as lobbyists or accepting consulting positions with lobby groups for some period of time following their exit from office - 5-10 years seems like a good starting point.