Obama General Discussion, vol. 4

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Note that the Obama campaign has not released its numbers for June, so we can't say for sure that they are behind Romney. Even if they are behind, we don't know by how much.
 
Ha, this is a hoot. I've noticed here in my liberal college town all the ""Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" bumperstickers disappeared about 3 years ago.

Dissent of any form now being "racist" of course.

Bushitler... ah, good times.
 
I liked the album that "Not Ready to Make Nice" was on. Good stuff. I never understood the big fuss over that statement, either.

Dissent of any form now being "racist" of course.

Except, no. I just listed some areas a page or two back where I would critique Obama. There is legitimate criticism out there on both sides, and I'll gladly listen to it when I hear it and discuss it.

But please don't tell me you honestly don't think that some of the criticism of him is racially motivated. The whole "birther" thing, the "secret Muslim" BS, the people at some rallies who held up signs with racial epithets, the infamous shot of him as a scary voodoo witch doctor. What is that if not racist?
 
Obama with a known terrorist.

120718_obama_abedin_ap_605_605.jpg

Proud of yourself Michelle?

yahoo.com

Huma Abedin's week got a bit scarier on Sunday when federal officials ordered extra security to her house after a New Jersey man threatened her.

The New York Post is reporting a Muslim man from New Jersey threatened Abedin after Michelle Bachman accused her of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The man was questioned by the NYPD but charges haven't been filed.
 
I am not in favour of an overly litigious society but if I were Huma Abedin, I'd lawyer up and go after Michele Bachmann (and the other trolls) with a libel and/or slander suit.
 
all i know is for most of bush's presidency if anyone dared to criticise him for the slightest thing, we got attacked for being unamerican. yet if the right does the same to obama...what? i don't hear the left saying that, and i guess now that there is a democrat in power it's suddenly not unamerican to criticise the president? so much for that united front many loved to go on about during that rah-rah wrap yourself in the american flag period.

it didn't seem like anyone from the right wanted to admit maybe bush wasn't amazing and perfect until aboooout, umm...2008? right about when he entered lame duck territory and the economy turned to shit. though even now the latter's still being placed solely on obama's shoulders when it sure as hell wasn't his fault the economy stunk when he became president. (and before anyone attacks me for that comment, no i'm not talking about how the economy is now, i'm talking in january 2009 only.)


You have Americans saying that President Bush is a war criminal, that he is hitler, an idiot and compare him to a chimp. Do you expect his supporters to simply say, "look we understand your criticism and don't feel uncomfortable with the way you criticize the President." Of course not. When faced with such attacks, especially when the country is involved in multiple wars, the response from some on the right was only natural.


As for the Dixie Chicks, they picked up new fans despite losing old ones simply for attacking Bush. Funny to see people who were not even into country music start buying Chicks music and going to their concerts.
 
Not really primarily about Obama, but an interesting overview of a notorious, if not actually well understood, local political culture:

Slate, July 23
If I hear one more person accuse the Obama campaign of practicing “Chicago-style politics,” I'm gonna kick all his nephews off the park-district payroll. I’m gonna send some precinct captains over to straighten him out. Mitt Romney and his surrogates don’t understand what Chicago-style politics means. No one seems to have told them that it’s been gone for 25 years. And they don’t get that Barack Obama, in his Chicago days, never had anything to do with it.

Chicago-style politics, in common parlance, refers to the 1950s-1970s era of the Richard J. Daley machine. If you want to read a great, short book about that world, I recommend "Boss" by Mike Royko. The strength and durability of the Daley machine was its ethnically based patronage network, a complex system of obligations, benefits, and loyalties that didn’t depend on televised communication with a broader public. It was a noncompetitive system that in its heyday had a lock on urban power and the spoils that went with it. One of the most memorable phrases from that era comes from a story often told by former White House Counsel Abner J. Mikva, who described attempting to volunteer on a local campaign in the late 1940s: “Who sent you?” asked the cigar-chomping 8th Ward precinct captain. “Nobody sent me,” replied Mikva. “We don’t want nobody nobody sent.” The machine was dominated by the Irish and centered in Bridgeport, the rough-and-tumble neighborhood that was the ancestral home of the Daleys. Bridgeport’s antithesis has always been the liberal, multicultural enclave of Hyde Park, the University of Chicago neighborhood where the Obamas—and Bill Ayers—live. (The other thing the precinct captain told Mikva was, “We don’t want nobody from the University of Chicago in this organization.”) Hyde Park’s 5th Ward was the only one out of 50 to elect an independent alderman until the late 1960s, when political reformers like my parents and their friends on the North Side began to challenge the Daley machine.

By the mid-1980s, the independents had mostly finished off the Daley machine—thanks mainly to the Shakman decree, still very much in force, which prevents any political consideration in hiring, firing, and promotion, with the exception of a thin layer of policy positions. This meant that when Harold Washington, a black machine politician turned reformer, was elected in 1983, he controlled only a few hundred city and county jobs, instead of the 35,000 Daley had at his disposal. By the time the younger Richard M. Daley was elected mayor in 1989, the Chicago machine was, like the Italian Mafia, more legend than force. Chicago-style pizza still exists. Chicago-style politics, equally deplorable in my view, no longer does.

In 2008, John McCain ran ads describing Obama as “born of the corrupt Chicago political machine.” But Obama, who moved to Chicago in 1985 to be a community organizer in a politically disenfranchised neighborhood on the South Side, had no link to the Chicago machine at all. In "Dreams From My Father," he describes trying unsuccessfully to get the attention of city officials—in the Harold Washington era—to deal with asbestos in public housing projects. That’s how far outside of Chicago-style politics Obama was. Obama never ran for a Chicago office. Hyde Park elected him to represent it in the Illinois State Senate in 1996. He tried for Congress in 2000 and lost. Then he got elected to the US Senate in 2004. He somehow passed through Chicago politics without ever developing any real connection to it.

As for Obama’s Chicago-based hit men, well, they don’t come out of Chicago-style politics either. David Axelrod was a quintessential Hyde Park independent, a University of Chicago student and disciple of the reform guru Don Rose. Axelrod cut his teeth denouncing what was left of Chicago-style politics as a Chicago Tribune political reporter in the early 1980s before quitting journalism to help elect the notoriously honorable downstate politician Paul Simon to the Senate in 1984. That was the first campaign Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel worked on as well. Rahm was too young to have much to do with the Daley machine. As for the others, David Plouffe is from Delaware. Jim Messina is from Montana. They are in Chicago, but not of it.

Some Republicans seem to think Chicago politics is about brutal, slashing attacks on opponents—Al Capone with an ad budget. That’s what John Boehner was complaining about when he used the phrase in 2009 to describe the way the Obama administration was demonizing opponents of his health care bill, like the US Chamber of Commerce. But political aggression is hardly a distinctive Chicago trait. While American politics has never wanted for harsh negativity, the Chicago machine era predates media campaigns driven by sound bites and attack ads. The best modern exemplar of hardball politics is probably the late South Carolina political consultant Lee Atwater, who ran George H.W. Bush’s ugly 1988 presidential campaign.

If they aren’t referring to machine politics, maybe Mitt’s boys are trying to say something else? In a recent call with reporters, Romney adviser Ed Gillespie described Chicago politics as simple cronyism, with contracts and rewards going to Obama’s largest fundraisers. But Chicago-style politics was never much about big donors either. The machine was funded through involuntary contributions. City workers had to kick back a portion of their salaries to fund the political operation. For an example of a politician notorious for rewarding major campaign contributors, look to Richard Nixon, the first president to put a price on ambassadorships ($250,000), and his relationship with the likes of Walter Annenberg.

Of course, Romney isn’t interested in this kind of nuance. “Chicago-style politics” is mainly just a way for him to call Obama corrupt without coming out and saying so. Speaking for the campaign, former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu told Fox News, “This is a president who wallowed in Chicago—in the murky soup of politics slash felons.” Sununu, of course, swims in the clear broth of integrity slash ethics. But here too, the Romney line seems a little out of date. While Chicago aldermen have kept up their love affair with petty crime, Illinois state politics has become much sleazier, with half of the last eight governors moving from the state house to the big house. For a politician like Rod Blagojevich, it’s Springfield—away from the scrutiny of the Chicago media—that affords the real opportunity for corruption. Somehow, “Illinois-style politics” doesn’t have quite the same ring.
 
Proud of yourself Michelle?

yahoo.com

Huma Abedin's week got a bit scarier on Sunday when federal officials ordered extra security to her house after a New Jersey man threatened her.

The New York Post is reporting a Muslim man from New Jersey threatened Abedin after Michelle Bachman accused her of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The man was questioned by the NYPD but charges haven't been filed.

I wasn't threatening her, I was just looking for the answers she won't give to Michelle.
 
I'm an independent and just can't find a reason to vote for Obama. In all honesty I don't think he accomplished anything significant. He blames the economy on Bush yet he had control of the house for the first two yrs of his presidency. He has nothing to run on like his hope & change campaign. He has been campaigning for the last three years instead of fixing the economy. He still hasn't fixed freddie and fannie. His only accomplishment is gay marriage and health care which nobody wants. He's a disappointment. I'm not a fan of Romney but anybody would be better than Obama. He's a wreck. Everything he says is a lie. He is ruining this country.
 
I'm an independent and just can't find a reason to vote for Obama. In all honesty I don't think he accomplished anything significant. He blames the economy on Bush yet he had control of the house for the first two yrs of his presidency. He has nothing to run on like his hope & change campaign. He has been campaigning for the last three years instead of fixing the economy. He still hasn't fixed freddie and fannie. His only accomplishment is gay marriage and health care which nobody wants. He's a disappointment. I'm not a fan of Romney but anybody would be better than Obama. He's a wreck. Everything he says is a lie. He is ruining this country.

Bush did screw up the economy quite significantly, and there was no way one person could repair it during a two year period. Yes, it sucks that millions are still out of work and the economy is still slow, but it doesn't go away like magic. Also, the whole world is suffering to some degree. Just be thankful you aren't living in Spain.

As for the campaigning part, all politicians - presidents, senators, congress, etc. - spend nearly half their time campaigning if they sincerely want to be reelected. Its lousy, of course and that is the reason why I firmly believe in one-terms for all politicians so they wouldn't do all this campaigning bullshit. Spend five years in office and leave. I'm currently reading That Used To Be Us by Thomas L. Friedman and he had a whole section that discussed why politicians spend so much time campaigning than devoting their entire time working. I'll post some excerpts when I get a chance.

There are some people who do want universal health care. I don't know if you mean nobody wants gay marriage, but again, there are some who do.

As for Obama being a "wreck" and lying and ruining this country, well its not like he set out to destroy the U.S. if that is what you believe. All politicians lie, conservative or liberal. They also are all about PR and marketing themselves to the public, hence Obama's hope and change campaign. I really believe it is very naive for anyone to believe that any politician is truly honest with his or her people and says everything they mean to say.
 
Bush did screw up the economy quite significantly, and there was no way one person could repair it during a two year period. Yes, it sucks that millions are still out of work and the economy is still slow, but it doesn't go away like magic. Also, the whole world is suffering to some degree. Just be thankful you aren't living in Spain.

Do you think it is inappropriate to criticize the President on the economy because of Bush? Since when does a President get a free pass on an important issue for four years thanks to the previous President?
 
Do you think it is inappropriate to criticize the President on the economy because of Bush? Since when does a President get a free pass on an important issue for four years thanks to the previous President?

Has anyone said this?

This has to be the one of the weaker attacks from the right. No one is giving or asking for a free pass, they are just asking for context. Context applies in every other logical discussion in life, so it should apply in a campaign as well. Argue the legitimacy of the context, not the fact that context was brought up.
 
I think it's important to judge what policies a president has actually been able to pass and what they've actually accomplished. There hasn't been very much. Like the tax cuts, government expansion, and deficit increase or not, it's hard to deny that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped boost the economy; indeed, the economy started growing again around then that bill went into effect. The Affordable Care Act was also done under the first two years, but any impact that it's had on the economy is very questionable, since it doesn't really come into effect for another couple of years. Since 2010, there hasn't been much of substance. Why isn't Obama "fixing the economy"? Because he's the president, not Congress. What Congress wants is Keynesian stimulus entirely to rich people. What Obama wants is Keynesian stimulus for the majority of people and modest tax increases for rich people. These are basically incompatible. Neither party seems to care at all about the deficit, although both abuse the hell out of the deficit for political gain. Both parties realize that true austerity would nuke the economy as it did for Europe. Meanwhile, the Fed has been sort of propping up the economy... at least to the point of preventing contraction, although I'm starting to think that it may soon be time for another round of QE. But Obama has had very little influence over any of this.

It's absurd to look at a span of time and say "well, we're not booming, so it's Obama's fault, and Romney will do better". What it is important to do is look at what Obama has actually done, and what Bush actually did, and what Romney will actually do - and put all three in the context of a friendly Congress, a lukeworm Congress, and a hostile Congress.
 
Do you think it is inappropriate to criticize the President on the economy because of Bush? Since when does a President get a free pass on an important issue for four years thanks to the previous President?

Of course I don't think its inappropriate to criticize Obama on the economy because of Bush, and in no way am I giving him a free pass. Bush got the ball rolling with the recession and dismal economy. Yes, Obama could have done a little more to improve it, but as I said, fixing an economic crisis doesn't happen over night.
 
Moonlit, actually i am for gay marriage. And obviously health care needs to be reformed but i feel the way he did it will make it worse. He barely pushed it through even though the majority of Americans did not want it. Nancy Pelosi said that of course congress should vote for it so we can find out whats in it. Wow. Only in America.

It seems that the hope and change that he promised for Americans never came. I feel that he was elected because independents voted for him in large quantities and most were sick of Bush. He sacrificed the economy to push through health care. He complains about taxing the rich but extended the Bush tax cuts. His stimulus was pushed through without anyone reading it and it did little to contribute to the GDP. The only thing i see is roads being repaved that didnt need to be repaved and his signs saying he paid for it. It's not the government's job to boost the economy. It's the government's job to create an environment where private companies thrive and then collect minimal taxes from these companies to run government.
 
Agreed on your points (and didn't mean to imply you weren't for gay marriage, just funny to hear someone state nobody wanted it. But apologies for the misunderstanding).

I definitely agree he should be fighting back harder against the Bush tax cuts. And the healthcare bill should be a lot better than what it currently is (after all, we won't start seeing any benefits that do exist in it for two years. I'd kind of prefer it be sooner than that, myself).

But I wouldn't call those "lies", necessarily, so much as promises he tried to make and found harder to keep because of all sorts of variables that were in the way (an uncompromising Congress, Americans who brought into the "death panels" BS, people who don't understand what socialism means and who thus convoluted the hell out of so many of our political discussions as a result, a Democratic party that really, desperately needs more spine, corporate influence that runs our government all over the place, a struggling economy that has a push and pull over what we wish to fund right now and what we don't, etc.).

It sucks, and that shouldn't mean he should give up on fighting for what he really wants to do and promised he'd do, absolutely not. He should be pressed to work harder if we feel he's failing somewhere. And hey, if he gets a second term, who knows, he could be emboldened to really start digging in and doing what he wants. Don't know. But campaigning is all about trying to inspire people. It would've been great if he'd come out and said, "Hey, I'll do what I can to try and get this and that done", but that doesn't win you elections. So if his "hope and change" doesn't reflect reality, well, I'd argue that's in part because we didn't want to listen to the reality of the situation. Doing so might require us to make as much sacrifice as we're expecting everyone else to make. And when you've got the wealthier people complaining because, oh, my god, they might have to pay more in taxes, or people complaining because their taxes are going to things they might not personally agree with, or thinking it's someone's fault if they can't afford healthcare, or whatever, that tells you a lot about our willingness to sacrifice and help right there.

As for the government being involved in the economy...eh, I dunno about that. I think they have to be involved to some extent. Private business helps, definitely, but I don't see why it has to be one or the other working to keep our economy stable. Why can't both work together?

EDIT: I really hope all of this made sense-it's late, and I'm kinda tired, and it turned into a ramble of sorts. If I've again misunderstood something or don't make sense, I'm sorry, and please feel free to clarify or ask me to do so.
 
Moonlit, actually i am for gay marriage. And obviously health care needs to be reformed but i feel the way he did it will make it worse. He barely pushed it through even though the majority of Americans did not want it.

Actually, if you poll Americans on the provisions within "Obamacare" - the majority are for it. It's only when it's labeled "Obamacare" that half the country finds their Pavlovian trigger and hates it.

It seems that the hope and change that he promised for Americans never came.

Do you think that having the most obstructionist Congress in history might have something to do with his perceived lack of progress? And I say "perceived" because I actually think he's accomplished quite a lot considering the crippling partisanship he has to deal with.

He complains about taxing the rich but extended the Bush tax cuts.

Probably because Congress would absolutely not allow the tax cuts to expire, and made it quite clear that they had absolutely no interest in compromising on the issue.
 
Actually, if you poll Americans on the provisions within "Obamacare" - the majority are for it. It's only when it's labeled "Obamacare" that half the country finds their Pavlovian trigger and hates it.

Exactly.

This cartoon was hanging in the waiting room of the largest physicians group here in conservative Texas:

obama+part


I saw an article over a year ago where people who associated themselves with the Tea Party even polled high support when they were polled on the provisions separately. Very telling...
 
Exactly.

This cartoon was hanging in the waiting room of the largest physicians group here in conservative Texas:

obama+part


I saw an article over a year ago where people who associated themselves with the Tea Party even polled high support when they were polled on the provisions separately. Very telling...

If they were real Americans, they'd burn their medicare cards and social security checks. We have to get this country back on track and stop these socialist policies! Until they do this, people who call themselves Conservatives are just RINOs or those neo-libertarian pot smoking Paulites
 
Has anyone said this?

This has to be the one of the weaker attacks from the right. No one is giving or asking for a free pass, they are just asking for context. Context applies in every other logical discussion in life, so it should apply in a campaign as well. Argue the legitimacy of the context, not the fact that context was brought up.

There is a perception out there that the economic conditions that exist today are the fault of one person, Bush, and that Obama is in no way responsible for economic conditions in 2012, nearly four years after he became President. The degree to which Bush was responsible for the economic crash in late 2008 is debatable, and the degree to which Bush is responsible for economic conditions in July 2012 is less debatable. Obama and his economic policies have been in place for nearly four years now, and its a mistake to simply be excusing Obama from economic concerns today and harping about someone who has not been in the White House making policy for almost four years now.

Bush is not running in this election and should not really be part of the debate about who to vote for in November. Its Obama vs. Romney and that is what people should be focused on.

Obama and his supporters need to be honest about the record of the last four years and do their best to explain and defend their policies over that time. Shifting blame to a former President is simply dishonest and a failure to accept responsibility.
 
Angel617 said:
There is a perception out there that the economic conditions that exist today are the fault of one person, Bush, and that Obama is in no way responsible for economic conditions in 2012, nearly four years after he became President. The degree to which Bush was responsible for the economic crash in late 2008 is debatable, and the degree to which Bush is responsible for economic conditions in July 2012 is less debatable. Obama and his economic policies have been in place for nearly four years now, and its a mistake to simply be excusing Obama from economic concerns today and harping about someone who has not been in the White House making policy for almost four years now.

Bush is not running in this election and should not really be part of the debate about who to vote for in November. Its Obama vs. Romney and that is what people should be focused on.

Obama and his supporters need to be honest about the record of the last four years and do their best to explain and defend their policies over that time. Shifting blame to a former President is simply dishonest and a failure to accept responsibility.

The blame for the crash really isn't debatable its dishonest to turn your eyes away from the fact that certain policies over years lead to this demise. It's also dishonest to talk as if crashes such as these recover quickly. It's economics 101. Do you remember during the Bush years how Republicans talked about Clinton's foreign policies and how it lead to the then current issues? CONTEXT. Economies, wars, health epidemics, etc these all take a culmination of years to develop and then take years to fix. Nothing this big changes overnight, and for the Republicans to pretend otherwise is just playing dumb for politics sake.
 
Obama and his supporters need to be honest about the record of the last four years and do their best to explain and defend their policies over that time.

True, because judging by the 'Romney standard' Obama has a very good record regarding job creation in the economy.
we ought to give [...] at least six months or a year to get those policies in place.
So according to Romney, Obama has created about 3.2 million private sector jobs (and about 2.8 million overall, as he has decreased the government jobs). Not too shabby...
If the first six months don't count... - The Maddow Blog
 
The blame for the crash really isn't debatable its dishonest to turn your eyes away from the fact that certain policies over years lead to this demise. It's also dishonest to talk as if crashes such as these recover quickly. It's economics 101. Do you remember during the Bush years how Republicans talked about Clinton's foreign policies and how it lead to the then current issues? CONTEXT. Economies, wars, health epidemics, etc these all take a culmination of years to develop and then take years to fix. Nothing this big changes overnight, and for the Republicans to pretend otherwise is just playing dumb for politics sake.

The report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission would disagree with your statement that the blame for the crash isn't debatable. Economists and analysts more intelligent than you or I continue to debate and analyse where the blame lies for the crash, and will be debating it for decades.

Have you read the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report, incidentally? Well, here it is:

http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report/
 
Moonlit, actually i am for gay marriage.

On this forum, it isn't enough to be in the pro-gay marriage camp - if you don't think that legalising gay marriage at a federal level is the most important government priority right now, then you're a homophobe Bible-bashing trogoldyte.
 
Certainly we've got numerous things of massive importance to deal with right now, nobody's arguing that.

But given the heavy duty problems we do need to deal with, for people to still dig in their heels on that particular issue in this day and age, and for people to continue to blame most, if not all, of our current ills on it, is ridiculous. And it's something that I think could be much more easily and quickly dealt with compared to, say, fixing our economy, which is going to take a good, long while.

Plus, I tend to be of the belief that a country that recognizes the basic rights of its citizens is a country that's better equipped to deal with all the other issues thrown its way. The less time we spend worrying and fretting over the idea of gays getting married, the more free time we have to devote to issues that are actually worthy of our concern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom