Obama - a failed presidency?

**1KielsonDrive** · September-09-10, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

How long has he been in office again?

2 years. That's 2 years of futile attempts to 'reach across the isle'. A lot of things he could've accomplished by Executive Order, he's refused to do. He put the wars in the hands of the generals. Afghanistan is our modern day Vietnam. DADT is still up in the air. That battle could've been off the radar by now. Guantanamo and it's 'prisoners' hasn't been clearly ended. Bush tax cuts are going to be extended. Obama Care is a joke for anyone who needed health care at all, much less without interference from drug, medical and insurance companies. C'mon, anytime you pass a law of that significance taking effect in two, three, four or more years, it's just a cop out. Not only is it saying you can't get shit done, it gives those people who you're attempting to reach across the isle to, the chance to scuttle every thing you accomplished. What else? Let's see there's no extension of unemployment benefits, there's the failed mortgage program. Obama is a lame speaker. I just don't get it when people say he's inspiring. He has no fire.

**1KielsonDrive** · September-09-10, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

Exsactly and you all want him in a little more than 18 months to Unfuck what Bush has fucked up over sas period of 8 years? GTFOH with that. Now you are calling his presidency a failed one and its not even half way through his term? If anything I will say that Obama's presidency has been the most judged, scrutinized, picked apart, and criticized since the man took office. Hell I even remember people making remarks about how he took the friggin OATH geesh!

I don't expect him to Unfuck what Bush has fucked up. That's unlikely to happen in our entire lifetimes. But he sure as hell doesn't fight like Bush did. Obama's managed to adopt and keep a lot of Bush's programs. As far as scrutiny, Obama is getting little more from the right than Bush got from the left, deserved or not.

**Gyro** · September-09-10, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

Why not talk about the Republican party as a failed political party given the sort of issues they choose to use in their campaigns, their demagogic leaders, and the sort of mentality they are appealing to.

Indeed! Their only agenda seems to be to suck at the teat of these guys:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...0fa_fact_mayer

**Detroit Stylin** · September-09-10, 12:15 PM

In all honesty and this you cannot deny. Obama has to walk a very very thin line. If he attempts to be aggressive then he is going to be labeled what assertive Black men has ALWAYS been labeled in this history of this country as dangerous and or out of control therefore a threat to those who despise him anyway. If he appears to some to not be assertive enough then he is going to appear to be weak. So no matter which side of the line he tries to walk he will always be wrong. THAT is the Black reality ion this country not matter what office one holds.

**johnsmith** · September-09-10, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

In all honesty and this you cannot deny. Obama has to walk a very very thin line. If he attempts to be aggressive then he is going to be labeled what assertive Black men has ALWAYS been labeled in this history of this country as dangerous and or out of control therefore a threat to those who despise him anyway. If he appears to some to not be assertive enough then he is going to appear to be weak. So no matter which side of the line he tries to walk he will always be wrong. THAT is the Black reality ion this country not matter what office one holds.

Why would he be labeled that now and not before? I call BS. He undeniably gained some votes solely for the color of his skin. Now you're saying it's working against him? The only people that keep injecting race or color into his presidency are the "liberals".

**1KielsonDrive** · September-09-10, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

In all honesty and this you cannot deny. Obama has to walk a very very thin line. If he attempts to be aggressive then he is going to be labeled what assertive Black men has ALWAYS been labeled in this history of this country as dangerous and or out of control therefore a threat to those who despise him anyway. If he appears to some to not be assertive enough then he is going to appear to be weak. So no matter which side of the line he tries to walk he will always be wrong. THAT is the Black reality ion this country not matter what office one holds.

True, those are realities. Regardless, he's our president. He MUST do something, and as far as I'm concerned it MUST be change you can believe in. I've seen none of it to this point. If the challenge is too much for him, he should resign. Otherwise, stay and fight. I keep hearing excuses for this guy. All this nonsense about the 'Chicago' politician, the grad of this university, the community organizer, etc, etc. He is an ordinary executive at best.

**1KielsonDrive** · September-09-10, 03:50 PM

[quote=johnsmith;180111]Why would he be labeled that now and not before? I call BS. He undeniably gained some votes solely for the color of his skin. Now you're saying it's working against him? The only people that keep injecting race or color into his presidency are the "liberals".[/quote]
Pure Bee Ess!

**Papasito** · September-16-10, 11:23 AM

Obama - a failed presidency?

Well, we are 2 years in, and we have this news today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39211644/ns/us_news-life

Record number of Americans living in poverty

Census Bureau says 43.6 million people in 2009, up near 4 million in a year

The bureau said in a statement that the official poverty rate was 14.3 percent

In the words of Bill Clinton,
"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

**maxx** · September-16-10, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

2 years. That's 2 years of futile attempts to 'reach across the isle'. A lot of things he could've accomplished by Executive Order, he's refused to do.

Like what? And would that have increased the power of the executive even more than what happened under W?

He put the wars in the hands of the generals.

What recent president hasn't?

Afghanistan is our modern day Vietnam.

W dropped that ball and tried for the "easy money" in Iraq. The easy money turned out to be primarily for Halliburton, Cheney's old company.

DADT is still up in the air. That battle could've been off the radar by now.

Again, during time of war any president would want the backing of the military before instituting a policy change that the generals had opposed in the past.

Guantanamo and it's 'prisoners' hasn't been clearly ended.

Why not criticize the people who jailed so many innocents there to begin with?

Bush tax cuts are going to be extended.

So now you are adding predictions to your list of criticisms.

Obama Care is a joke for anyone who needed health care at all, much less without interference from drug, medical and insurance companies. C'mon, anytime you pass a law of that significance taking effect in two, three, four or more years, it's just a cop out. Not only is it saying you can't get shit done, it gives those people who you're attempting to reach across the isle to, the chance to scuttle every thing you accomplished.

First of all, your use of the name Obamacare is dishonest, since it was thrown together by the Congress. Look to the Reps. and Senators who wouldn't pass a public option and kowtowed in other ways to the healthcare industry. For profit health care came in Nixon's admin. According to his own White House tapes, Nixon loved the idea of people spending more and getting less healthcare. That's in the movie "Sicko". And it's not unusual for a law to take a couple years to go into effect to allow businesses the time to get ready for the change. The difference is that businesses have far too much influence over elections and legislation.

What else? Let's see there's no extension of unemployment benefits, there's the failed mortgage program. Obama is a lame speaker. I just don't get it when people say he's inspiring. He has no fire.

So what you want is some demagogue that shouts a lot of hooey instead of presenting rational ideas. I haven't found most presidents "inspiring" since I graduated college. Rhetoric is cheap as W and his speech writers proved.

**Mikeg** · September-16-10, 12:28 PM

....your use of the name Obamacare is dishonest, since it was thrown together by the Congress.

I think it is dishonest to ignore Obama's back-room meetings at the White House that resulted in a deal with the pharmaceutical industry reps to cap their contributions at $80 billion worth of cost savings towards health care reform [[a.k.a. "Obamacare"). [source]

During the July 2009 meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, in exchange for offering $80 billion in cost savings over 10 years, lobbyists for big pharma extracted a pledge from the Obama Administration that the health care reform legislation would not include Medicare drug price bargaining nor allow the importing of cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe. [source]

So much for two of Obama's campaign pledges: to limit the influence of special interests and to legalize the importation of prescription drugs from abroad. That's change you can really believe in!

**1KielsonDrive** · September-16-10, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

Like what? And would that have increased the power of the executive even more than what happened under W?
What recent president hasn't?
W dropped that ball and tried for the "easy money" in Iraq. The easy money turned out to be primarily for Halliburton, Cheney's old company.
Again, during time of war any president would want the backing of the military before instituting a policy change that the generals had opposed in the past.
Why not criticize the people who jailed so many innocents there to begin with?

So now you are adding predictions to your list of criticisms.
First of all, your use of the name Obamacare is dishonest, since it was thrown together by the Congress. Look to the Reps. and Senators who wouldn't pass a public option and kowtowed in other ways to the healthcare industry. For profit health care came in Nixon's admin. According to his own White House tapes, Nixon loved the idea of people spending more and getting less healthcare. That's in the movie "Sicko". And it's not unusual for a law to take a couple years to go into effect to allow businesses the time to get ready for the change. The difference is that businesses have far too much influence over elections and legislation.
So what you want is some demagogue that shouts a lot of hooey instead of presenting rational ideas. I haven't found most presidents "inspiring" since I graduated college. Rhetoric is cheap as W and his speech writers proved.

Apologist!

**firstandten** · September-16-10, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

I think it is dishonest to ignore Obama's back-room meetings at the White House that resulted in a deal with the pharmaceutical industry reps to cap their contributions at $80 billion worth of cost savings towards health care reform [[a.k.a. "Obamacare"). [source]

During the July 2009 meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, in exchange for offering $80 billion in cost savings over 10 years, lobbyists for big pharma extracted a pledge from the Obama Administration that the health care reform legislation would not include Medicare drug price bargaining nor allow the importing of cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe. [source]

So much for two of Obama's campaign pledges: to limit the influence of special interests and to legalize the importation of prescription drugs from abroad. That's change you can really believe in!

On the surface it sounds pretty bad, but understand Obama may seem and even talk like an idealist but he is a realist of the highest order. If he doesn't make a deal with a powerful special interest group like Big Pharma, the money they put behind defeating the Health Care Plan. would be too much to overcome, and Health care would have died before it had a chance to get started. A key special interest group like big pharma wants to know whats in it for them when politicans start talking about change. Especially change thats going to negatively impact their profits. Once you get powerful special interest groups in your corner you can get some things done. Do I like it .. No, but thats the way DC works and its been like that for a long time

From the fact check website of the St Petersburg newspaper
The Obameter Scorecard

Promise Kept 122

Compromise 39

Promise Broken 22

Stalled 82

In the Works 238

Not yet rated 3

**ghettopalmetto** · September-16-10, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

True. Like I always say, there's plenty of legitimate criticism against Obama. He's made plenty of mistakes and boneheaded moves. However, if this guy sneezes there'll be a front page headline complaining about it. I don't know if it's the economy or what, but America is fired up about this president big time!

Yawn. Someone wake me when 1994 is over.

**Papasito** · September-17-10, 06:42 AM

It is the economy.
If he had just focused on it instead of throwing a couple trillion at it and then moving on to his personal agenda, he'd be a shoe-in in 2012, and Democrats wouldn't be fighting for life in November this year.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-17-10, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

It is the economy.
If he had just focused on it instead of throwing a couple trillion at it and then moving on to his personal agenda, he'd be a shoe-in in 2012, and Democrats wouldn't be fighting for life in November this year.

And by "focusing on it [[the economy)", you mean "cut taxes".

**maxx** · September-17-10, 08:54 AM

Mikeg: think it is dishonest to ignore Obama's back-room meetings at the White House that resulted in a deal with the pharmaceutical industry reps to cap their contributions at $80 billion worth of cost savings towards health care reform [[a.k.a. "Obamacare")

Well, when the Republicans start the campaign to reform the reform, they can eliminate that cap. But, then they weren't interested in any reform, were they? They thought everything was just fine with healthcare even though people's premiums had doubled since W was elected. Republicans family values: My family is doing just fine. Screw everyone else's.

Why didn't the Republicans do the right thing when they had control of the entire Congress and institute campaign finance reform and get all the corporate money out of campaigns? Why didn't they reform healthcare then? They didn't even allow for Medicare to bargain with the Big Pharma for decent prices as the VA does. They are just into playing power games instead of even attempting to help the average citizen. And now their conservative Supreme Court has assured us that our elections will be nothing but corporate propaganda fests, our elections will be just empty rituals.

**oladub** · September-17-10, 09:14 AM

An interesting read although it is not sourced. Maybe it's fiction. I don't know. The only way to confirm it might be to keep an eye open for patterns, or leaks, confirming this story. One of the comments is that the story is "utter BS" while another commenter thinks the article has the "ring of truth". Stories like this circulated about Nixon too. I don't know if those were true or proven either.

"White House Insider: "The President is losing it."

**Mikeg** · September-17-10, 09:32 AM

maxx,

You were the one who wrote "use of the name Obamacare is dishonest, since it was thrown together by the Congress". I responded with one good example of Obama's involvement in the health care reform legislative process but instead you just go off on a rant.

Whether you like it or not, this wildly unpopular health care reform legislation will be forever known as "Obamacare" and there is no dishonesty in calling it that.

**rb336** · September-17-10, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

Whether you like it or not, this wildly unpopular health care reform legislation will be forever known as "Obamacare" and there is no dishonesty in calling it that.

there is very little honesty in it, either. it is merely mindless right-wing bullshit, as usual

**Mikeg** · September-17-10, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

An interesting read although it is not sourced....... Stories like this circulated about Nixon too......

Nixon may have had paranoid streak, but he had a long career of public service and was a known quantity before he was ever elected President, thanks to an adversarial press which had examined every inch of his life and career long before he even sought the Presidency in 1968.

Regardless of their political leanings, at least the electorate in 1968 knew that Nixon had the intellect and "fire in the belly" to be Chief Executive. Here we are 20 months into his Presidency and can we say the same about Obama ?

**oladub** · September-17-10, 10:50 AM

US homes lost to foreclosure up 25 pct on year

US home repossessions spike in August to highest level since start of mortgage crisis

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-homes-lost-to-foreclosure-apf-1876677328.html?x=0

Did I do that?

**1KielsonDrive** · September-17-10, 11:04 AM

[quote=Mikeg;182302]Nixon may have had paranoid streak, but he had a long career of public service and was a known quantity before he was ever elected President, thanks to an adversarial press which had examined every inch of his life and career long before he even sought the Presidency in 1968.

Regardless of their political leanings, at least the electorate in 1968 knew that Nixon had the intellect and "fire in the belly" to be Chief Executive. Here we are 20 months into his Presidency and can we say the same about Obama ?[/quote]
This is the main point of my argument. Thank you.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-17-10, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

US homes lost to foreclosure up 25 pct on year

US home repossessions spike in August to highest level since start of mortgage crisis

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-homes-lost-to-foreclosure-apf-1876677328.html?x=0

Did I do that?

Are you claiming this is causation, or merely correlation? If the former, perhaps you should cite the specific actions taken by the Obama administration that were direct causes of the results you trumpet. Those of us who have been awake since before January 20, 2009 know that the economy busted well before Obama entered office.

Just more crap from a "personal responsibility" shill who expects nothing from the government--except to accept responsibility when things go wrong. Privatize the profits and socialize the losses, right?

**Papasito** · September-17-10, 11:38 AM

Just more crap from a "personal responsibility" shill who expects nothing from the government

Personally, If America has to shell out $1+ trillion on "economic stimulus" plans that we didn't ask for, I think we want [[and deserve) our monies' worth! Results, please.
Things are no better now then when that joke of leslation was passed.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-17-10, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Personally, If America has to shell out $1+ trillion on "economic stimulus" plans that we didn't ask for, I think we want [[and deserve) our monies' worth! Results, please.
Things are no better now then when that joke of leslation was passed.

It's a bit difficult to get what you think you "deserve" when you don't have any defined, specific goals [[aside from obstructing the President's agenda just because he has a "D" after his name).