Thread: Evaluating Barack Obama: the first ... POTUS Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028781
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
Hawaiian. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
It's no secret I'm hardly a fan of this guy's approach to wielding state power but I grudgingly acknowledge he's done much of what he promised to do, with the perhaps notable exception of stopping the seas from rising.
He's shrewd enough to manage his opposition so that they seem to be petty which is statesmanlike, I guess, although his opponents could certainly do better.
On domestic policy I give him a C, mainly because he's too smart to earn a D so some of what he's done or not done has to be intentional.
Foreign policy he gets an A- (although it will be interesting to see if his comparatively laid back approach to combatting 'terrorism' has the effect I think he wants). Even the most rabid libertarian isolationist types would have to admit his hands off approach to solving the world's problems are closer to what the founding fathers envisioned than any President in recent memory has practiced.
So how do you think he's done?
Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on
:
Personally I like the guy.
His opponents in the last two elections were appalling. I can never understand why parties on either side of the Atlantic insist on putting up such useless champions but somehow BO managed to avoid getting left behind.
It's the job that's crap though with the constitutionally-guaranteed antagonism between President and Congress. Anything that he has achieved on the domestic front is a major success which he should get an A+ for IMO.
As usual the Pres makes up for his inevitable domestic difficulties by doing fairly well on the foreign front. Even Nixon scored there.
As for the seas rising, well yes he didn't do much there but Canute springs to mind...
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
It's hard to tell with the press being controlled both sides of the atlantic by conservative factions. But I'd say he's been similar to our past labour government and somehow got far too entangled for his own good with industrial lobbyists - particularly on environmental issues. Here I'm particularly concerned about the two trade agreements being negotiated - how could the US sponsor international trade agreements that are secret even to government administration/elected representatives and which will if signed give supra-governmental powers to corporations?
There was a possibility that I think was seen worldwide, not just in America, for something radical and what we got instead was a steady hand.
Considering that he's had a philistinely hostile republican presence to battle (rather than a group of people who seem to be interested in government), he's probably done pretty well.
And on that note, looking across the pond, I am slightly concerned at how the US voting population seems to be splitting into two very conflicted camps. The principle of politics is to reach some hopefully wise and measured consensus of the direction of public opinion, and to steer public opinion through its more extreme and reactionary swings. That becomes harder as there is less middle ground consensus.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
toadstrike, welcome to the Ship!
Please take the time to check our Ten Commandments, Guidelines, and FAQs, and post a hello on the Welcome Aboard thread in All Saints if you wish.
Eutychus
Purgatory host
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I just finished a book called, the Seven Nations of America which helps explain how our political system has come to a virtual gridlock.
It points out that how the South developed this anti black (or other minority) attitude.
There was a time when the Republican party had a very strong African American representation because it was the party of Lincoln. However, about the tie of FDR you begin to see a migration of the black vote to the Democratic Party.
Then came the civil rights movement when whites felt disenfranchised in what had originally been a states rights party (The Democrats)
The Republicans, under Lee Atwater, a Nixon political strategist, saw an opportunity to tap into this white voter hostility toward people of other races.
And the parties flipped. The party that had advocated a strong central government now became a states rights movement. And the states rights party became an advocate for the strong central government.
The book "Seven Nations" came out about midway through Obama's first term. Consequently it did not address the Republican takeover of the Congress. But it does say the opposition is large part do to Obama's skin color. It is sad.
Domestically, given the grief Obama has had to put up with, I would give him a solid B. He has accomplished much of what he said he would do, but there is a lot that is still on the table.
Foreign Policy wise I would give Obama a C. He is definitely better than Bush II but not as good as Clinton, for for that matter, Bush I.
I find he waits too long to make a decision and when he does, as far as foreign policy is concerned, it is not enough--the ISIS/ISIL situation as case in point.
Once these mid term elections are over he will effectively be a lame duck. I have never been a fan of term limits. I say let the man run as many times as he wants, but we Americans have a way of shooting ourselves in the foot.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Speaking as someone who isn't from the US, I find President Obama weak on foreign policy.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
I've often wondered how the discourse around western interventionism would be going these days if it were a Republican rather than a Democrat making the arguments in favour.
Like, if it were President John McCain(backed by Fox News and bible-belt preachers) telling the world how we all need to bomb Syria to stop ISIS, would it get the kind of relatively broad support that Obama's arguments have garnered across the political spectrum? Or would progressive opinion just be "Yeah yeah yeah, more yankee fear-mongering just to get oil"?
I guess another way of phrasing this would be to say that, if it were a white Republican of unsullied Christian ancestry running the show in the US, the streets of global capitals would be clogged with a lot more protestors than we're seeing now. Like, "Tens of thousands gathered today in Whatever Square to voice their opposition to whatever bombing campaign etc".
[ 12. October 2014, 18:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Stetson: Like, if it were President John McCain(backed by Fox News and bible-belt preachers) telling the world how we all need to bomb Syria to stop ISIS, would it get the kind of relatively broad support that Obama's arguments have garnered across the political spectrum? Or would progressive opinion just be "Yeah yeah yeah, more yankee fear-mongering just to get oil"?
I don't support the bombing of Syria by President Obama (but that's another thread).
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Speaking as someone who isn't from the US, I find President Obama weak on foreign policy.
The UK press seems to quite enjoy making Obama look impotent in the face of global threats. A bit strange since there is no general agreement that his predecessor's macho tactics did any other than make matters worse. All Obama has really done on foreign policy is continue the strategy embarked upon by Bush without looking like a berk.
I don't have much knowledge of the US to know whether his home policies have been successful or not.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't have much knowledge of the US to know whether his home policies have been successful or not.
We don't either.
iow, it depends on who you ask (which would probably be true anywhere, wouldn't it?).
fwiw, IMHO the record is mixed. I think the record shows clearly that Obamacare is working. Not was efficiently and effectively as a single-payer system would have, but that was never in the cards. Given the limitations he was working under, it was nothing short of miraculous he got this much done. And it has really been, literally, a life-saver. But you won't catch the GOP saying that. And since most of the progress is under-the-radar (e.g. the insurance policies that weren't cancelled because of a costly diagnosis; the medical bankruptcies that weren't filed, or a much smaller increase but still increasing costs) it's easy for many-- perhaps most-- to overlook that huge success. By my book, if that's all he accomplished, it would be wonderful.
I also think he's accomplished something amazing economically. Unemployment is finally down-- thank God. The economy is starting to turn around. We're not out of the woods yet but I think he managed to steer us out of a horrific skid that W started. But again, that's the sort of thing hard to see, because it depends on what you think would have happened if he hadn't been at the helm.
On other fronts, there's some real disappointments: particularly the lack of any real accountability in the financial sector-- the architects of the crash. Immigration and education reform are still on the to-do list.
[ 12. October 2014, 22:40: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by BessLane (# 15176) on
:
I was hooked on him from his DNC speech in '04. I wish he had waited till 12 to run, but I voted for him in '08 just the same. To me, he is a True Believer. I think he really wanted, and still wants to make the USA the place it should be.
These days, it's pretty tough to do.
He made me mad letting Mega Church guy do the prayer the first time he took office. He's let me down on a couple of issues, but he's really tried, I think, to put his ideas into action. They might not be well implemented, but that's the way things work.
I'll take someone who I think really loves and cares for this country 'running' it over some entitled Skull Club inductee any day.
Unfortunately, the POTUS doesn't actually run the country, he just gets blamed for all of the screw ups that happen....
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
rolyn: The UK press seems to quite enjoy making Obama look impotent in the face of global threats.
When I'm saying I find him weak on foreign policy, this doesn't necessarily mean that I find him impotent in the face of global threats. Those things don't mean the same thing.
It's just I was hoping for something more positive on him, for example towards the Israel / Palestine conflict. I haven't seen very much there.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BessLane:
He made me mad letting Mega Church guy do the prayer the first time he took office.
To some degree, it was payback-- of the most benign and appropriate kind. The one thing Rick did was invite Obama to speak at his MassiveChurchPlace several times even before '08, and then moderated a fairly decent debate in the '08 election. What that did was give legitimacy to all us long-forgotten lefty evangelicals. It affirmed that you could, in fact, vote Democratic and still be a card-carrying evangelical. I'm sure Rick didn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he did change the dialogue and move the goal posts to make a position like mine understandable to my fellow evangelicals. That was huge-- and helpful.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BessLane:
Unfortunately, the POTUS doesn't actually run the country, he just gets blamed for all of the screw ups that happen....
That's the way it looks.
"Yes we can" probably needed qualifying by "but separation of powers may mean that we can't".
And if the Senate goes GOP, I guess he becomes a two year rather than a one year lame duck. (But I see that Nate Silver is forecasting "not so likely". He gets it right a lot).
The question of "who comes next" will take over increasingly. And unless the GOP can find a way of expanding its appeal amongst ethnic minorities, it's likely to be a Democrat again. It's also unlikely that the GOP House Majority is in much danger of being overturned for a while yet, for different demographic reasons (which strike me from this side of the pond as the continuing dangerous freedoms to gerrymander electoral boundaries).
My guess is that the US is in for more of the same. A Democratic President blocked and delayed by Congress. This is interesting in this context.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Barnabas62: And if the Senate goes GOP, I guess he becomes a two year rather than a one year lame duck. (But I see that Nate Silver is forecasting "not so likely". He gets it right a lot).
That link is from September 2012. His current forecast says that Republicans will take the Senate.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
He has been pragmatic to a fault, but not quite so pragmatic as Bill Clinton was.
Bush II had such a formative influence on what I expect a president to be that I am painfully hard to disappoint. While I have a fair number of frustrations, I have a generally favorable impression of Obama.
[ 13. October 2014, 00:47: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Barnabas62: And if the Senate goes GOP, I guess he becomes a two year rather than a one year lame duck. (But I see that Nate Silver is forecasting "not so likely". He gets it right a lot).
That link is from September 2012. His current forecast says that Republicans will take the Senate.
buzzkill.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... "Yes we can" probably needed qualifying by "but separation of powers may mean that we can't". ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog:
... He has been pragmatic to a fault
How is being pragmatic a fault?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I quite enjoyed this assessment of Obama.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I'm saying I find him weak on foreign policy, this doesn't necessarily mean that I find him impotent in the face of global threats. Those things don't mean the same thing.
Sorry, wasn't meaning to insinuate anything.
To be fair I rarely watch TV news these days. When I do there's usually a hint of conservative bias TMM. Obama was made to look wobbly on IS which is unkind as the Mid-East mess has been inherited, not caused by him.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Best president in my entire life (I'm 47).
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Bush II had such a formative influence on what I expect a president to be that I am painfully hard to disappoint. While I have a fair number of frustrations, I have a generally favorable impression of Obama.
Well said. I'm not American, so by accident of geography I don't get to elect the person who impacts the geopolitics and economics of my region more than my own sad sack of a leader (don't get me started ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
). As far as I'm concerned, GWB was the worst leader I've seen in my lifetime, so anything was going to be a step up. And it has been. I am still very concerned about the US "intelligence" agencies determination to find out every single fucking detail about our lives, assisted ably by the very compliant social media giants and Google (hey, boys! I hope this isn't too boring a read for y'all!) If anything, Obama seems to have increased the reach of the NSA, which I find troubling. And the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 seems risible now.
But still, from where I sit, he seems to be an improvement on his predecessor. Maybe he should set the bar a bit higher, though.
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I've often wondered how the discourse around western interventionism would be going these days if it were a Republican rather than a Democrat making the arguments in favour.
Like, if it were President John McCain(backed by Fox News and bible-belt preachers) telling the world how we all need to bomb Syria to stop ISIS, would it get the kind of relatively broad support that Obama's arguments have garnered across the political spectrum? Or would progressive opinion just be "Yeah yeah yeah, more yankee fear-mongering just to get oil"?
I guess another way of phrasing this would be to say that, if it were a white Republican of unsullied Christian ancestry running the show in the US, the streets of global capitals would be clogged with a lot more protestors than we're seeing now. Like, "Tens of thousands gathered today in Whatever Square to voice their opposition to whatever bombing campaign etc".
According to non-president McCain he would not have removed our troops from Iraq and he would have intervened in the Syrian Civil War with not only air strikes but ground troops as well so ISIS would never have arisen. Of course, God only knows what mess we would be embroiled in now following his lead
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then came the civil rights movement when whites felt disenfranchised in what had originally been a states rights party (The Democrats)
The Republicans, under Lee Atwater, a Nixon political strategist, saw an opportunity to tap into this white voter hostility toward people of other races.
And the parties flipped. The party that had advocated a strong central government now became a states rights movement. And the states rights party became an advocate for the strong central government.
Have not read the book. Are you sure about the Lee Atwater comment? He was too young to be part of the Nixon white house and was certainly not the originator of Nixon's Southern Strategy that did exploit the white southern voter's problem with civil rights. Johnson noted that when he signed the civil rights act of 1964 that the democrats "have lost the south for a generation."
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on
:
My issue with Obama is that he thinks being president is being a statesman and above the partisan politics when it is always a political office and,like Clinton, one needs the "continual campaign" while President, not just every two or four years. It is why I was for Hilary Clinton in 2008 because the Clintons are political fighters and would have given grief to the Republicans in equal or greater measure than they would receive.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
My issue with Obama is that he thinks being president is being a statesman and above the partisan politics when it is always a political office and,like Clinton, one needs the "continual campaign" while President, not just every two or four years. It is why I was for Hilary Clinton in 2008 because the Clintons are political fighters and would have given grief to the Republicans in equal or greater measure than they would receive.
I'm not an American and don't really understand your system, but am I the only person who finds that statement very disturbing?
Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.
To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?
[ 15. October 2014, 21:59: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sorry about the duff 538 link. Shipmates. No excuses, a straightforward misread.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?
Well, no; there's this whole balance of power thing, with the rule of law, not by persons. (See below for link.) Obama has been trying very hard to reunite what has become a scarily divided country, with some genuine animosity and viciousness coming from the extreme right-wing making it harder to accomplish that or anything else.
Three-Ring Government
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BessLane:
Unfortunately, the POTUS doesn't actually run the country, he just gets blamed for all of the screw ups that happen....
He's the first president that made me realise that this is true.
Which is to say that Obama has been the only President I can remember who is both smart enough and principled enough that I think he could be trusted with more power than he actually has. Every other US President (from Reagan onwards) I thought had too much power, but I wish Obama had been able to do more.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
My issue with Obama is that he thinks being president is being a statesman and above the partisan politics when it is always a political office and,like Clinton, one needs the "continual campaign" while President, not just every two or four years. It is why I was for Hilary Clinton in 2008 because the Clintons are political fighters and would have given grief to the Republicans in equal or greater measure than they would receive.
I'm not an American and don't really understand your system, but am I the only person who finds that statement very disturbing?
Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.
To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?
Well, I come from Canada, where we imported the British political system, and I would respectfully suggest that you are a tad naive if you think that governments under Westminster never mix governance with partisan self-interest.
I mean, have you honestly never heard anyone in the UK say something like "The only reason the people in Whereverbury got that new hospital built is because there was a by-election coming up and the government figured they had to toss them a few goodies"?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, I come from Canada, where we imported the British political system, and I would respectfully suggest that you are a tad naive if you think that governments under Westminster never mix governance with partisan self-interest. ...
Of course they do. What I find disturbing - and I would hope most of the rest of us do - is somebody saying they would rather a politician who is in government rather than opposition did this more rather than less.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
As for his dealings with Congress, I think early on in his first term he made the mistake of assuming that the congressional Republican, especially those in the House, were rational actors who were actually interested in formulating legislation. Instead he found that they were more interested in obstructing any and all functions of government especially those championed by Obama and preferred government shut-downs to compromise. He failed to appreciate the death grip the right wing extremists, i.e., the Tea Party,Fox News,etc., had on the Republicans and especially the congressional leadership.
He failed to understand that in these times politics has become a blood sport. I often thought that had I been in his position I would have carefully placed leaks to the press that I was going to move Federal and/or military personnel and facilities out of red states or red congressional district to blue states. It doesn't really matter if the President has the authority to do these things. The credible perception that these things could happen should be sufficient.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, I come from Canada, where we imported the British political system, and I would respectfully suggest that you are a tad naive if you think that governments under Westminster never mix governance with partisan self-interest. ...
Of course they do. What I find disturbing - and I would hope most of the rest of us do - is somebody saying they would rather a politician who is in government rather than opposition did this more rather than less.
Well, as I read it, your statement seemed to suggest that you expect politicians to behave better than Lawrence was hoping for the Clintons to behave.
quote:
Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.
But if your post is meant as saying that you consider it perverse to wish for MORE sleazy self-interest in the system(while acknowleding that such tendencies already exist), I can go along with that.
I would like to point out, though, that in some ways, Westminister actually makes it easier for ruling-parties to taint the governance process with partisanship. I remember in the 80s, an NDP government in western Canada(the NDP being the Canadian version of Labour) called an election for December. A TV news reporter added as an afterthought...
"The premier is possibly hoping that harsh winter weather will keep traditionally conservative voters in rural areas away from the polls."
Obviously, such manipulation can't take place in a system where elections have to be held on a specific day in a specific year.
[ 17. October 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Once a person is elected, they are responsible for ruling everybody and in the interests of everybody, not just those who voted them in. Nor are they there to wield the big stick and oppress those who did not vote for them in the interests of those who did. Or that's what I think anyway, and certainly as applied within my own country's constitution.
To put it a different way, once a person is elected, isn't it their job to be a higher version of George III for four years?
You as a candidate for President need to put together some sort of coalition of interests groups (e.g., from defense issues, social issues, financial issues) to get the electoral votes and the political mandate to get elected and actually govern. There is now the expectation that you will do your best to get the agenda you campaigned on actually enacted. Your opposition will try its best to stop you. You will need to use the full arsenal of political tactics available to you in order to get some or all of that agenda enacted into law and operational. That requires the "continual campaign" if you wish to be successful. There is a certain duplicity that all successful politicians need to use to get elected (i.e., they promise to do something that they have no intention of doing), but you need to honestly attempt to satisfy those that got you elected. You won't appear to be a higher version of anything if you ignore what got you elected and you will appear to be more of a chump, or an idiot, than a statesman if you think you can "elevate" yourself above the political fray and "rule everybody" in their best interests.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 seems risible now.
It was risible then - awarding the NPP to someone who's done sod-all in the realm of foreign affairs or world peace, just because he isn't the last guy, is about as risible as it can get, no?
[ 22. October 2014, 18:14: Message edited by: jbohn ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Bumping this to post this article on Obama's recent use of the "soft power" of the presidency.
quote:
Barack Obama displayed inspiring leadership on Friday. He also promoted public health, fought bigotry, and helped calm raging paranoia. His heroic act? He hugged somebody.
Nina Pham, the first person to be infected with Ebola within the United States, had just been declared disease-free and discharged from the National Institutes of Health. Obama is a rational, science-friendly guy, so he knew she wasn’t any danger to him. It didn’t take courage to hug her.
An important counterweight to the prevailing Republican position which seems to be "ZOMG we're all going to DIE!!!1!!1!" The article goes on to contrast Obama's approach with that of Reagan's handling of the early days of the AIDS crisis. You can probably guess who comes off looking better.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
Well done, I think.
In general, he's been a pretty decent President, as far as I can see. Not perfect, but pretty decent. A damned sight better than his predecessor, of course...
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on
:
I agree
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
He is a bigot, a fool, and a tyrant.
Thankfully he is nearly done, and we can be on to the next one...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
He is a bigot, a fool, and a tyrant.
Thankfully he is nearly done, and we can be on to the next one...
I would wholeheartedly agree with this post if it were 2007. I honestly believe Obama is the best president we've had in my lifetime--even better than Carter and miles better than Clinton.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
He is a bigot, a fool, and a tyrant.
Thankfully he is nearly done, and we can be on to the next one...
I would wholeheartedly agree with this post if it were 2007.
Barry was only two out of three in 2007.
He wasn't killing his own citizens and their minor children with drones just yet.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Obamacare.
Jesus H. Christ on an everloving bicycle, we have health insurance. You in other countries cannot know how big a deal this is.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
He wasn't killing his own citizens and their minor children with drones just yet.
I have to say I find it mystifying that this particular incident has been treated as such a big deal, given the vast numbers of American citizens killed by American law enforcement in America - whether justified or not (and I'd say in some cases it clearly IS justified by doctrines of self-defence).
But kill an American overseas, using a drone? Suddenly THAT'S a basis for demonising an entire Presidency.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Jesus H. Christ on an everloving bicycle, we have health insurance.
That H must be for Hussein, am I right?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Obamacare.
Jesus H. Christ on an everloving bicycle, we have health insurance. You in other countries cannot know how big a deal this is.
Indeed I think this, in the end, is going to be seen as the big story from Obama's presidency in years to come. It's the kind of change that is going to continue to affect the lives of a huge proportion of the American population.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ditto re Obama being pretty darn good, and infinitely better than the previous dude.
O. wasn't just handed a full plate--he got a 12 course buffet for 508 people, was stuck with the cleanup, and has a minute-by-minute job review every day. The Republicans in Congress swore, from the beginning, that they would never approve anything he was for. Oh, and a bunch of people thought he was a/the Messiah. And hated him when he wasn't.
romanlion (or anyone else): I'll probably regret asking, but in what way is O. a bigot??
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
The only American presidents that have made this Australian sit up and take notice have been Kennedy and Cliton. I find Obama very dull and boring and usually turn off the tv when he is making a speech. He certainly doesn't appear as the brightest star in the sky to me.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
sorry, meant to type Clinton
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
He is a bigot, a fool, and a tyrant.
I'm sure he's done some foolish things. Or at least made some decisions which he himself would acknowledge that way.
But bigotry and tyranny? What examples did you have in mind?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Speaking as someone from outside the U.S. who doesn't know much about U.S. politics it was bloody confusing seeing congress continually block the president again and again on issue after issue.
I think growing up I bought into the propaganda of the president being "very powerful" and "in charge". When government grinds to a halt as happened recently or you realize that there is still no surgeon general in the midst of Ebola panic and you realize that in fact he isn't in charge it's....as I said above bloody confusing.
Also makes you wonder about American democracy in the sense that the guy the majority voted into power is being overruled "mostly" by people belonging to the party that the majority didn't vote for.
From my admittedly uninformed understanding this seems completely backward.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
Perhaps bigot isn't fair....maybe he's just a typical half-black person.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Speaking as someone from outside the U.S. who doesn't know much about U.S. politics it was bloody confusing seeing congress continually block the president again and again on issue after issue.
I think growing up I bought into the propaganda of the president being "very powerful" and "in charge". When government grinds to a halt as happened recently or you realize that there is still no surgeon general in the midst of Ebola panic and you realize that in fact he isn't in charge it's....as I said above bloody confusing.
It's a lot easier to buy in to the "President is the most powerful man in the world" hype when you live outside the U.S. Presidents usually face the least interference from the other branches of government when handling foreign affairs. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but that's the current practical reality.
The American government was deliberately set up with a lot of veto points in order to "check ambition with ambition", in the words of James Madison. The idea being that each branch of the government would be jealous of its prerogatives and "check" any over-reaching by the other branches, thus preventing tyranny. The general idea was to default to whatever the status quo happened to be whenever there was a dispute or controversial change. I'm not sure Madison or the others anticipated using America's plentiful veto points to deliberately derail the government.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
romanlion, the H. in Jesus H. Christ must obviously stand for Honda. You remember his apostolic prayer? And it says later in Acts that the Apostles were all in one Accord.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Perhaps bigot isn't fair....maybe he's just a typical half-black person.
Were you the guy in the car ahead of me the other day with the bumper sticker that said "I'm not racist, I don't like Obama's white half either"?
Your claiming not to be a bigot and that guy's claiming not to be racist prove that both of you are what you claim not to be.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Careful, Pigwidgeon. Commandment 3 prohibitions protect all Shipmates.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Perhaps bigot isn't fair....maybe he's just a typical half-black person.
And that got a reference to Admin. A classic jerkish remark, since it includes a blatant racism. Namely the assertion that half-black people "typically" exhibit something easily mistaken for bigotry.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure Madison or the others anticipated using America's plentiful veto points to deliberately derail the government.
Well, they weren't at all sure that their little experiment would last. In some ways, they were flying by the seat of their pants. And some of them had the...quaint...idea that we'd need a bloody revolution now and again, just to shake things up.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Obamacare.
Jesus H. Christ on an everloving bicycle, we have health insurance. You in other countries cannot know how big a deal this is.
Indeed I think this, in the end, is going to be seen as the big story from Obama's presidency in years to come. It's the kind of change that is going to continue to affect the lives of a huge proportion of the American population.
Given how health care reform has been an ostensible Democratic goal for pretty much the whole of the post-war era and that attempts by LBJ and Clinton (who were working with more favorably inclined legislative partners) failed to achieve it, I'll have to agree with you. Unless Obama actually manages to make that shift to climate policy he's been talking about recently. That seems pretty ambitious for his last two years.
For a quick glance at the effects of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare") check out this blog post with helpful maps cribbed from the New York Times. The geography is mostly what you'd expect, but there are a few surprises. (WTF, Maine?)
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Perhaps bigot isn't fair....maybe he's just a typical half-black person.
And that got a reference to Admin. A classic jerkish remark, since it includes a blatant racism. Namely the assertion that half-black people "typically" exhibit something easily mistaken for bigotry.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
A blatant what, you say?
[link edited - double http:// made it unreadable. B62.]
[ 29. October 2014, 19:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Romanlion,
If you wish to argue with a hostly statement, this is NOT the place.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Careful, Pigwidgeon. Commandment 3 prohibitions protect all Shipmates.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Sorry, Barnabas! I guess I forgot I was in Purg rather than Hell.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
From my admittedly uninformed understanding this seems completely backward.
Well, the idea is that the three parts of government act as checks and balances on each other. But I think that Congress is deliberately misusing that rather than working out appropriate compromises.
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Romanlion,
If you wish to argue with a hostly statement, this is NOT the place.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
I wasn't trying to argue. B62 asked me for an example of Barry being a bigot.
I would say that calling his Grandmother a "typical white person" was a good one.
Based on his response to my post I think he must agree.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
[ADMIN]
This doesn't look like the Styx. Oh, right: because it isn't.
Arguing about whether or not you argued about a Hostly ruling is still, technically, arguing about it. So, let's make it clear: when you get back from your suspension, contain all this kind of Crew meta-discussion in The Styx.
Ironic tip of the day: When defending the use of racism, it is wisest to not be defensive.
[/ADMIN]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given how health care reform has been an ostensible Democratic goal
And Nixon and Reagan and both Bush's. Did not come to fruition then either, but it did not become Evil until Obama pushed it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given how health care reform has been an ostensible Democratic goal
And Nixon and Reagan and both Bush's. Did not come to fruition then either, but it did not become Evil until Obama pushed it.
I think you're confusing things which are serious policy objectives (e.g. LBJ & Clinton's attempts at health care reform) with stalking horse proposals designed to drain away enough support from serious Congressional efforts at reform so that neither plan is able to pass (e.g. all the presidents you mention). Given that Reagan kicked off his political career campaigning against Medicaid, it's particularly egregious to assert that he sincerely supported any kind of health care reform.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
You've a better understanding of this than I, without a doubt. The article I read mentioned their proposals without any depth. My bad for taking that at face value.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that Reagan kicked off his political career campaigning against Medicaid, it's particularly egregious to assert that he sincerely supported any kind of health care reform.
Well, to be fair, he wanted reform-- just not the sort that would be helpful to the vast majority of Americans.
Posted by Anesti (# 18259) on
:
i believe this speech is an adequate summary.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anesti:
i believe this speech is an adequate summary.
I played about 26 minutes of that in the background, damn you.
So here's this guy who apparently believes he and his friends should (absent constitutional authority) 'transform America'.
Personally speaking - he's overreaching.
Not to mention lying about the debt.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Anesti:
i believe this speech is an adequate summary.
I played about 26 minutes of that in the background, damn you.
So here's this guy who apparently believes he and his friends should (absent constitutional authority) 'transform America'.
Perhaps next time you should pay closer attention. I believe he mentioned 'ordinary people' (as in We the) as transforming America.
But you may be right about his overreaching. And Obama should send his Nobel Peace prize back to the committee.
[ 14. November 2014, 21:49: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
How many illegal things has this one done? Compared to Bush-2's war crimes of torture, Reagan and Bush-1's illegal smuggling of arms to the Contras via Iran, Clinton's inappropriate sex and lying about it, Carter - did he do something illegal?, Nixon was criminal in so many ways -- who else do you want to list - is this one as bad a criminal?
I find him an uninspiring speaker. A disappointment that he didn't dismantle the criminality of the Bush-2 crew and go after them. He is weak on implementation of anything in the foreign policy arena. Is the latter symptomatic of your country's drift away from democracy and drift into corporations running everything? Where trade is foreign policy and everything doesn't matter? Is the Obama blameworthy for simply being in the tide that started with that Reagan ideology, where, deceitfully, they labelled all things done in the public sphere, government provided services of all types, and all civil services as inefficient and bad if provided via government and efficient and angelic if provided by private companies (save the war-making parts, though that is changing as well with the mercenary military contractors companies)?
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.
The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.
(Of course, if you can do it perhaps you should. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.
The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.
I think the word you're looking for is "uppity".
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.
The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.
I think the word you're looking for is "uppity".
*the sound of my jaw dropping*
Way to go, Crœsos.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea being that each branch of the government would be jealous of its prerogatives and "check" any over-reaching by the other branches, thus preventing tyranny. The general idea was to default to whatever the status quo happened to be whenever there was a dispute or controversial change. I'm not sure Madison or the others anticipated using America's plentiful veto points to deliberately derail the government.
It would be odd if they expected tyrants to try to take over the government with ambition, and yet expected that those same tyrants would be perfectly cooperative and reasonable when it came to holding up the levers of government.
The reason they anticipated tyranny and not non-compliance was not that they expected one and didn't expect the other, but that they judged that only one was a serious threat. The system is working or not working exactly as intended.
The problem is that the political theory of the time didn't take into account industrialisation, mass urbanisation, and the concomitant rise of a welfare state and the necessity for other government administrative functions.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.
The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.
I think the word you're looking for is "uppity".
No... I would have used that word.
Odd though you think that way. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.
The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.
(Of course, if you can do it perhaps you should. )
OK - so, does GWB (291 executive orders) also "personif[y] 'the insolence of office' in comparison to Obama (194 executive orders)? And how do Reagan (381 executive orders), Nixon (346 executive orders), and Eisenhower (484 executive orders) compare?
source
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.
The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.
(Of course, if you can do it perhaps you should. )
OK - so, does GWB (291 executive orders) also "personif[y] 'the insolence of office' in comparison to Obama (194 executive orders)? And how do Reagan (381 executive orders), Nixon (346 executive orders), and Eisenhower (484 executive orders) compare?
source
Also, I'm pretty sure Bush Senior used executive orders to grant amnesty to over a million illegal immigrants? The conservative outrage over Obama's use of the EO betrays a lack of free thinking.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
OK - so, does GWB (291 executive orders) also "personif[y] 'the insolence of office' in comparison to Obama (194 executive orders)? And how do Reagan (381 executive orders), Nixon (346 executive orders), and Eisenhower (484 executive orders) compare?
source
Well obviously it's a bit subjective but I'd say any time a POTUS bypasses the democratic process of involving the Legislature to the best of their ability and then unilaterally wield the power of the pen to achieve ends the public by and large isn't in favor of they're pushing it too far.
IMO one variable would be the size or scope of what the EO seeks to achieve: the more it affects the US public (or anyone else, for that matter) the more lightly any POTUS should be treading.
Anyway, I know that Gruber and his statist arrogant ilk revel in their contempt for stupid US citizens but do you really think it should be done quite that egregiously? The shoe will likely be on the other foot some day.
Although I guess you could give them points for honesty... until they backtrack (read: lie through their teeth) once they're caught out. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Finally, for now, and I say this with as much sincerity as I can muster: it's appalling watching the Left (no stone would have been unturned doing all they could to malign W if he had even approached the demonstrated contempt the current administration has for the Constitution) give Obama a pass.
'Liberals', my ass: nothing more than statists. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
(On a lighter note: tonight I will be enjoying the Reverend Horton Heat at Trees in Dallas' renowned Deep Ellum and just happen to have an extra GA ticket, gratis. Doors at 1900 and show at 2000 - please PM if you're interested - TIA.)
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Well obviously it's a bit subjective but I'd say any time a POTUS bypasses the democratic process of involving the Legislature to the best of their ability and then unilaterally wield the power of the pen to achieve ends the public by and large isn't in favor of they're pushing it too far.
A bit subjective?
And are you equating "the public" with "the Congress" or "the Republican Party" or some other group? From where I sit, it looks like at least some of Obama's EOs are measures the public by and large does favor, but that John Boehner refuses to bring before his House. Immigration reform, for example.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by toadstrike:
Personally I like the guy.
His opponents in the last two elections were appalling. As usual the Pres makes up for his inevitable domestic difficulties by doing fairly well on the foreign front. Even Nixon scored there.
Echo. The GOP has been absolutely vicious from the day Obama was inaugurated. They have tried touting "scandal" after scandal and, fortunately, none of them has had legs. I pine for the days of LaFollette in Wisconsin, Scranton in Pennsylvania, Rockefeller in New York. Their successors are creatures from outer space by comparision. Tradition my foot.
History will be kind to Obama. However, I'm not so sure he has been successful on the foreign front. With a stronger leader, I doubt that Putin, for instance, would have proceeded with his adventurism in the Ukraine.
My only disappointments are, first, his harsh attitude towards Edward Snowden; and second, for a man reportedly associated with Sojourners, I was hoping for more evidence of the spiritual insight on our national situation shown by Carter. Morris Berman makes a convincing case (at least to me) that Carter was actually one of our greater Presidents in perceiving that as a people, we are speeding headlong towards a drive off a cliff; and in trying to deflect this fundamental trajectory. He failed, of course; but no President since has even made an attempt, instead just going with the materialistic/consumerist/corporatist flow with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
[ 26. November 2014, 22:16: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
Please pardon the tangent: here's The Rev preaching it. (All I want for Christmas is a Rock And Roll electric guitar.)
http://moron.smugmug.com/Odd-things-Ive-seen/i-n9Q4PSM
And Chuck Berry rightfully smiles somewhere.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
Dear Cheechus,
Please allow me to quote one of my very favorite singer/songwriters: Todd Snider
sometimes you rise above it
sometimes you sneak below
in between believing in Heaven and facing
the devil you know
This time I'm going low.
I just got back from a few days working; that particular job allows me WAY too much time to think, which rarely ends well. Additionally I often get a nearly adequate dose of rabid right wing racist homophobe radio which gets me riled.
That said, as is my wont, I really have stupid on my mind right now (more soon, unrelated to you).
In the interim, be advised I may be bored enough to call you to Hell for your earlier stupid post on this thread - you know the one.
There is some possibility, however slim, that I could be dissuaded should you admit your post was stupid.
I'll wait a day or so for your response.
TIA.
PS: You may not recall it but I'm damn near certain I do - your very first post ever on the Ship on this thread. It was memorable for a variety of reasons.
Later!
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
And I must have botched the url in the post preceding the preceding - sorry. It was supposed to be only the video to The Rev, not that main page.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
Anyone presuming Obama is stupid is... well, you know. The guy is a genius.
The very day his flagship Affordable Care Act is demonstrated beyond reasonable debate to be based on intentional deception by and in the US House of Representatives he releases a 'torture' report which dominates the news. You've got to give him credit.
Returning to stupid though might be more amusing. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(my comments in parentheses)
Issa (definitely not stupid): "Are you stupid?"
Gruber (definitely stupid): "No, I don't think so".
change to different news story
Elijah Cummings (don't know but it's funny): “But worst of all,” the ranking member concluded, “Dr. Gruber’s statements gave Republicans a public relations gift in their relentless political campaign to tear down the ACA and eliminate health care for millions of Americans!”
Yup, the worst thing Gruber did is help Republicans.
All in all, though: how can you not love stupid? ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Your welcome.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
In the interim, be advised I may be bored enough to call you to Hell for your earlier stupid post on this thread - you know the one.
There is some possibility, however slim, that I could be dissuaded should you admit your post was stupid.
Issuing ultimatums ahead of threatened Hell calls is out of Purgatory bounds. Kindly stay within them in all respects or visit Hell directly.
/hosting
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Issuing ultimatums ahead of threatened Hell calls is out of Purgatory bounds. Kindly stay within them in all respects or visit Hell directly.
Oopsie.
You have my apology.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Well obviously it's a bit subjective but I'd say any time a POTUS bypasses the democratic process of involving the Legislature to the best of their ability and then unilaterally wield the power of the pen to achieve ends the public by and large isn't in favor of they're pushing it too far.
I would say that, if the POTUS can bypass the Legislature, then either it is perfectly democratic (i.e., the POTUS is the democratically-elected representative of all the people*) or there is something wrong with the Constitution.
-DS
* It's "one man one vote". He's the man. He has the vote.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
If the POTUS can bypass the Legislature, then . . . there is something wrong with the Constitution.
Understatement of the year. A Constitution that allows legislators to retain their seats when they have publicly sworn to block all that the President proposes simply because they don't like him personally is indeed seriously flawed.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Dear Cheechus
Well, moron, now you've come clean in Hell, here's another Hostly guideline.
Messing around with Crœsos' Shipname is also a a non-no. Within very broad limits you can do what you like to express annoyance in Hell (in fact you have) but lay off the nameplay games here. A rule which applies to all of us.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
PS Please also see this
[ 12. December 2014, 16:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on
:
Relaxing hostility towards Cuba is a positive for Obama, though it's still a real shame that most brutality in Cuba in recent years has been in the area leased by the US military.
If Obama could ensure the US veto on UN recognition of Palestine as a state was withheld, it would be a concrete step towards a two-state solution. That would be good for his name in history.
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
B62,
Again I apologize.
I guess I thought 'Cheechus' was fair game on a thread where people were posting allegations of racism.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0