Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by AEON

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

And this is why nothing gets done.

Maybe, just maybe, there are levels in the barrel that you need to take a look at.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Wrong. Not like this.

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.

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

Apples and oranges...

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

And that's way too easy...

[AEON]

It think it's easy to find supporting evidence that INDY is correct here. Conservative leaders are universally bashed by pop culture.

If anything, Obama has failed despite being given the benefit of the doubt in the early years of his presidency (it was all Bush's fault). Now, he's lost that support and starting to lose support from pop culture (and fellow Dems.)

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

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

And this is why nothing gets done.

Maybe, just maybe, there are levels in the barrel that you need to take a look at.

Maybe, but it's like comparing diarrhea to soft stool - at a certain point, the difference is not worth discussing.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by AEON

It think it's easy to find supporting evidence that INDY is correct here. Conservative leaders are universally bashed by pop culture.

If anything, Obama has failed despite being given the benefit of the doubt in the early years of his presidency (it was all Bush's fault). Now, he's lost that support and starting to lose support from pop culture (and fellow Dems.)

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

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

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by AEON

Maybe, but it's like comparing diarrhea to soft stool - at a certain point, the difference is not worth discussing.

You keep saying it's not worth discussing as if the statement is more or less self-evident. So does NBC, so does INDY. Meanwhile, there's a vast amount of information that directly contradicts you three, so I'm not sure why we have to keep having this merry-go-round.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

It think it's easy to find supporting evidence that INDY is correct here. Conservative leaders are universally bashed by pop culture.

But "pop culture" doesn't drive policy nor does it have the ability to block bills or block judicial nominations. The fact that Bono may have railed against Reagan didn't have any impact whatsoever on GOP legislation being passed or Reagan's nominees being confirmed.

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

Also, who is Martin Bashir?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

If anything, Obama has failed despite being given the benefit of the doubt in the early years of his presidency (it was all Bush's fault). Now, he's lost that support and starting to lose support from pop culture (and fellow Dems.)

Benefit of the doubt by whom? Pop culture? Wow, what a political boon! Why, it almost overcomes the most obstructionist political opposition in American history.

Obama was never given the benefit of the doubt from his political opponents -you know, the ones that actually matter in creating an effective government.

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

To any neutral observer, this has been the most obstructed presidency in history. To whit: the brouhaha over the so-called "nuclear option" - so far no Republicans have actually raised any objections specific to Obama's judicial nominees. McConnell has even gone so far as to say that Obama choosing to fill vacant seats in the district circuit is "stacking the bench."

It is one of the traditionally accepted duties of the American presidency to nominate qualified persons to fill judicial vacancies. The minority party has always been able to raise objections about specific nominations, but most of Obama's nominees have been filibustered without any actual candidate-specific objections raised. It's as if the Republicans aren't so much objecting to Obama's candidates as they are objecting to Obama's constitutional right to nominate them.

The Real Roots of the Filibuster Crisis

[PhilsFan]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by anitram

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]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

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.

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.