Between signing an executive order prohibiting federal funds to be used for abortion services, and clearing the way for off-shore drilling, I've forgotten why we all like Obama so much.
Originally posted Sunday, April 4, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Sunday, April 4, 2010 12:14 am (2 years ago)
Obama taking office under the campaign banner of "change" was a surefire way of shooting down his fans' hopes post presidency. It goes to show how difficult it is to change the establishment even as President. Just because you become President doesn't mean you become a super-hero able to move mountains or command the weather. Every president is forced to promise miracles to win votes and nobody remembers that. Funny how short term everyone's memories are because this is what happens every 4 years.
One thing that really annoyed me was the quasi-religiosity fervor of his fans.
I used to tell everyone during the euphoria of the Obama presidential campaign that once he's president, it will be business as usual. People were incredulous and dismissed me because I wasn't as zealous as they were.
Personally I think there were 3 good reasons for his fandom:
He ran a great campaign, tapping into outlets that had never been tapped. (eg. Young voters via facebook) The campaign was so successful, it felt cultish to be around fans.
The Bush era polarized voters. Non-partisan voters were tipped to their extreme sides. Hate grew against the other party, extreme loyalty grew in the Democratic base.
This was never discussed publicly, but I got the vibe that many people were absolving their past sins of racism by becoming a fan of a black presidential candidate. People who grew up in the 70s and 80s know that blatant racism was still common and it went more underground (perhaps lessened) in the 90s and the new millenium. I know many of my friends had held racist beliefs.
So it felt like people were zealots over Obama in the same way when people proudly claim to have black friends. So becoming a fan of a black president was a subconscious way of washing away their past mistakes.
Originally posted Sunday, April 4, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Sunday, April 4, 2010 5:11 pm (2 years ago)
Obama's "hang back and then pull the game out in the last quarter" style may drive you nuts, but as Kalman noted, when you consider how many presidents get so little accomplished in 4 years, his 1st year is pretty impressive.
Those of you who feel let down because of security, rights and LGBT issues, should try to understand something called political expediency. Very often politicians who are doing the right thing vote the wrong way because that's just how it has to be.
Here's a good example: Hillary's voting "yes" to allow Bush to invade Iraq. You know she knew damn well it was the wrong way to vote but there was no way she could have succeeded as a good senator if she voted "no". And I think she did the right thing at the time. (She also got lambasted for it later running for president, but who knew?) She got a lot done as senator, impressively so when you consider she was in the minority party, a woman, senator of NY state and "Hillary Clinton". She put in the hard work it took to win over and work with senators who started out hating her and all she stood for, senators who represented people who felt the same. There's no way they would have even taken a meeting with her if she voted "no". Sometimes if you want to be able to get some right things done you have to hold your nose and do the wrong thing or else you'll get nothing done.
Even Obama will have to do that again and again. The trick is to pick your spots, and he seems good enough to do it right, but we'll see.
(it does kind of bug me that too often when political expediency is called for it's the gay folks who get dumped on that alter.)
"Style is originality; fashion is fascism.The two are eternally and unalterably opposed." - Lester Bangs
Not sure I agree. I actually think it was politically unwise for Obama to hang back and let the GOP set the narrative on health care reform. The GOP were able to paint what is a very moderate reform (what Bob Dole and other REPUBLICANS were advocating in the 90s) as a socialist government takeover, and to distort the debate. As a result the Dems have a major PR challenge to tackle before the November election.
The fact is, Obama hasn't gotten much credit from independents for passing an achievement that will help many of them. And he has lost some support (or enthusiasm) from both the liberal and moderate wings of the democratic coalition and is too isolated (though the passage of HCR has improved the mood of the Left). I still think there was an opportunity for him to get a better bill (i.e., with public option and national exchanges) and more political support if he had engaged much earlier and framed the reforms much better. Clearly single payer wasn't realistic, so it was politically the right thing to not go for that. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have gotten more AND done so in a way that brought many independent voters along. Instead he got a watered down bill and lost public opinion.
I agree that he has gotten a lot done in his first year and should be commended for this. But that doesn't mean he hasn't made some mistakes or missed some opportunities. Overall, I give him a B grade.
I never said the tax cuts were an entitlement. I said they were budget busting and they were. I said that Medicare Part D was an entitlement, which it was. [/townhall]
Here... let me add a TownHall tag so you'll actually read what I said.
Israel has been covered in several other threads.
I'm not even going to argue about your statement about Islam. By your standards, American has been at war with Islam since Jefferson and probably before.
Originally posted Monday, April 5, 2010 (2 years ago)
Quote Those of you who feel let down because of security, rights and LGBT issues, should try to understand something called political expediency. Very often politicians who are doing the right thing vote the wrong way because that's just how it has to be.
All due respect, Zev, I know exactly what political expediency is. I don't need to be told to "try to understand" it. And if you look at the timeline of Obama's security-related actions, they were not driven by particular poll- or horse-trading-related concerns.
Also, you can take your "that's just how it has to be" and stick it. [bleep!] that. [bleep!] an executive that wipes his ass with the Constitution because "it's a war on terruh." [bleep!] an executive that continues (and expands) odious policies of that sort.
Originally posted Monday, April 5, 2010 (2 years ago)
Obama didn't campaign on political expediency - he campaigned against it. Obama talks about being on the right side of history; it's time to own that for LGBT Americans and some other issues he's taken a dive on.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 13, 2010 (2 years ago)
We love Obama because he skipped Economics 101 and still made president.
Let's see, we should limit those nasty bankers income, why should they make a million a year?
hmmm...maybe because they contribute more than a million a year to the company? otherwise they wouldn't be hired? ever occurred to mr. economics that if they are making million dollar bonuses that those bonuses are not random, but based on production?
BAD MORTGAGES created by FNMA (FEDS) have caused a meltdown???
MR. ECONOMICS SOLUTION IS TO ALLOW 125% LTV REFIS.
IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR, WHILE A TYPICAL LOAN MIGHT BE 80% OF THE VALUE OF YOUR HOUSE, FOR YEARS THE FEDS HAD THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A HOUSE AND MADE LOANS AT 97% OF THE VALUE, SO THE OWNER HAD LITTLE MONEY INVESTED. IN ADDITION THEY WERE GIVEN LOW INTEREST RATES THAT ADJUSTED LATER TO MARKET VALUE.
VALUES FLUCTUATED AND RATES VENT TO MARKET AND PEOPLE WERE IN TROUBLE.
BECAUSE OF THE TROUBLE LENDING 97% LOANS CREATED, OBAMA DECIDED THE SOLUTION WAS TO LEND 125%.
SO ONE CAN BORROW 125,000 ON A HOUSE WORTH ONLY $100,000.
Obama decides that people are hurting because they borrowed too much on their house, so lend them more? While this might have some fragile rationale if rates were super high and could be refied at lower rates so that 125% was actually a lower payment than 97%, but rates have been stable and most of these loans were sup-prime (way lower than the new market rate).
You can't pay your mortgage, so we will lend you more, and you have a profit incentive to walk off because we lent you more than the house is worth.
Skipped economics class and still made the oval office.
It's true that Wall St. bonuses are not "random", but it's far from the truth that they're based on contribution to the company's bottom line. Many of the people who got seven- & 8-figure bonuses in '07 & '08 were the same people who were responsible for the losses that brought down firms like AIG & Merrill. And while it's true that the explosion of sub-prime mortgages over the past 10 years or so is at the heart of what is being called 'The Great Recession'(putting it all in CAPS doesn't make it any more true) it is absolutely preposterous to blame Obama for this explosion. The subprime mortgage market experienced its biggest growth during Clinton & Bush. By the time Obama was in office that bubble had already burst. I know that many people on the right, especially those who think Palin is something more than an ex-beauty queen spouting one-line drivel, like to blame everything on Obama but the truth behind the financial mess from which (I hope) we're now emerging is far more complex. Which is probably why rabid right-wingers don't understand it.
Originally posted Wednesday, June 16, 2010 (2 years ago)
Edited on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:49 pm (2 years ago)
I caught Jon Stewart last night. Totally awesome and absolutely dead-on. Whatever happened to the guy who said he'd close Gitmo & bring transparency to the Executive Branch? Obama's embracing and extending many of Duh-bya's most egregious actions, unequivocally breaking many of the promises that made me one of his enthusiastic supporters during his campaign. At this point I find myself wondering if he had been insincere from the outset or if this is a case of power corrupting. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think it's the latter but the end result is the same either way so I guess it doesn't really matter. Also, given the utterly uninspiring line-up of Republican presidential hopefuls I'll probably wind up voting for Obama in '12.
Yeah, it pissed me off. I shared that on Facebook. The worst part was having a "friend" ( Brother's ex-girlfriend ) who is a right wing ideologue respond:
Quote I know that the reasons BO's supporters are disappointed with him are not the same reasons that Conservatives like myself dislike him for, that's clear.
What I don't understand (truly, zero snark intended) is why or how his supporters never saw the "empty suit" that was so apparent to people like me; the zero executive experience, the zero real-life experience (never even held a job before office), the arrogant, absurdly childish rhetoric ("this will be the day the oceans started to recede"), the general facile, ideological "faculty lounge" attitude. Because all of these things were portents that the man was getting in over his head, (with absolutely no idea that he was, the great downfall of the arrogant) that he was not and is not prepared to be POTUS. Add to all of this his penchant for absolute secrecy and stonewalling (the man will not even allow his college records to be made public!), all the while preaching unprecedented transparency, and his blatant "Chicago way" of dealing with any bumps in the road. It is, I admit, mind-boggling to me that anyone bought his line of BS. I understand that anti-Bush people were yearning and hoping for a change in leadership, but IMO, they poured all of that emotion and reason into an empty vessel - whatever else this man is, he. is. not. a. leader.
I am so NOT an "I told you so" type of person (much more of an "I am TELLING you!" type lol), and I take absolutely ZERO pleasure in the disappointment of good people who put their faith in this man. No gloating here. I am an American, and want to see my country succeed, regardless of ideology, so I do not root for failure. But I can say that none of this that has suddenly come to light for others is even remotely shocking to me - it was all laid out in black and white for a long, long time.
Remind me why we like Obama?
Between signing an executive order prohibiting federal funds to be used for abortion services, and clearing the way for off-shore drilling, I've forgotten why we all like Obama so much.
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... (49 items total)
Obama taking office under the campaign banner of "change" was a surefire way of shooting down his fans' hopes post presidency. It goes to show how difficult it is to change the establishment even as President. Just because you become President doesn't mean you become a super-hero able to move mountains or command the weather. Every president is forced to promise miracles to win votes and nobody remembers that. Funny how short term everyone's memories are because this is what happens every 4 years.
One thing that really annoyed me was the quasi-religiosity fervor of his fans.
I used to tell everyone during the euphoria of the Obama presidential campaign that once he's president, it will be business as usual. People were incredulous and dismissed me because I wasn't as zealous as they were.
Personally I think there were 3 good reasons for his fandom:
He ran a great campaign, tapping into outlets that had never been tapped. (eg. Young voters via facebook) The campaign was so successful, it felt cultish to be around fans.
The Bush era polarized voters. Non-partisan voters were tipped to their extreme sides. Hate grew against the other party, extreme loyalty grew in the Democratic base.
This was never discussed publicly, but I got the vibe that many people were absolving their past sins of racism by becoming a fan of a black presidential candidate. People who grew up in the 70s and 80s know that blatant racism was still common and it went more underground (perhaps lessened) in the 90s and the new millenium. I know many of my friends had held racist beliefs.
So it felt like people were zealots over Obama in the same way when people proudly claim to have black friends. So becoming a fan of a black president was a subconscious way of washing away their past mistakes.
Obama's "hang back and then pull the game out in the last quarter" style may drive you nuts, but as Kalman noted, when you consider how many presidents get so little accomplished in 4 years, his 1st year is pretty impressive.
Those of you who feel let down because of security, rights and LGBT issues, should try to understand something called political expediency. Very often politicians who are doing the right thing vote the wrong way because that's just how it has to be.
Here's a good example: Hillary's voting "yes" to allow Bush to invade Iraq. You know she knew damn well it was the wrong way to vote but there was no way she could have succeeded as a good senator if she voted "no". And I think she did the right thing at the time. (She also got lambasted for it later running for president, but who knew?) She got a lot done as senator, impressively so when you consider she was in the minority party, a woman, senator of NY state and "Hillary Clinton". She put in the hard work it took to win over and work with senators who started out hating her and all she stood for, senators who represented people who felt the same. There's no way they would have even taken a meeting with her if she voted "no". Sometimes if you want to be able to get some right things done you have to hold your nose and do the wrong thing or else you'll get nothing done.
Even Obama will have to do that again and again. The trick is to pick your spots, and he seems good enough to do it right, but we'll see.
(it does kind of bug me that too often when political expediency is called for it's the gay folks who get dumped on that alter.)
"Style is originality; fashion is fascism.The two are eternally and unalterably opposed." - Lester Bangs
Not sure I agree. I actually think it was politically unwise for Obama to hang back and let the GOP set the narrative on health care reform. The GOP were able to paint what is a very moderate reform (what Bob Dole and other REPUBLICANS were advocating in the 90s) as a socialist government takeover, and to distort the debate. As a result the Dems have a major PR challenge to tackle before the November election.
The fact is, Obama hasn't gotten much credit from independents for passing an achievement that will help many of them. And he has lost some support (or enthusiasm) from both the liberal and moderate wings of the democratic coalition and is too isolated (though the passage of HCR has improved the mood of the Left). I still think there was an opportunity for him to get a better bill (i.e., with public option and national exchanges) and more political support if he had engaged much earlier and framed the reforms much better. Clearly single payer wasn't realistic, so it was politically the right thing to not go for that. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have gotten more AND done so in a way that brought many independent voters along. Instead he got a watered down bill and lost public opinion.
I agree that he has gotten a lot done in his first year and should be commended for this. But that doesn't mean he hasn't made some mistakes or missed some opportunities. Overall, I give him a B grade.
I never said the tax cuts were an entitlement. I said they were budget busting and they were. I said that Medicare Part D was an entitlement, which it was. [/townhall]
Here... let me add a TownHall tag so you'll actually read what I said.
Israel has been covered in several other threads.
I'm not even going to argue about your statement about Islam. By your standards, American has been at war with Islam since Jefferson and probably before.
Kalman
All due respect, Zev, I know exactly what political expediency is. I don't need to be told to "try to understand" it. And if you look at the timeline of Obama's security-related actions, they were not driven by particular poll- or horse-trading-related concerns.
Also, you can take your "that's just how it has to be" and stick it. [bleep!] that. [bleep!] an executive that wipes his ass with the Constitution because "it's a war on terruh." [bleep!] an executive that continues (and expands) odious policies of that sort.
Obama didn't campaign on political expediency - he campaigned against it. Obama talks about being on the right side of history; it's time to own that for LGBT Americans and some other issues he's taken a dive on.
Kalman
On the plus side, Obama and Co. just got the Ukraine to deliver all their weapons-grade fissile material to the US for enrichment.
Of course, the START treaty won't get ratified, because no Republican will vote for it.
Kalman
Why not? Seriously, it's exactly in line with what the sainted Reagan did.
If Iran or North Korea decide to use nukes, we can retaliate. If anyone uses bioweapons, we can retaliate with nukes. What's the problem?
We love Obama because he skipped Economics 101 and still made president.
Let's see, we should limit those nasty bankers income, why should they make a million a year?
hmmm...maybe because they contribute more than a million a year to the company? otherwise they wouldn't be hired? ever occurred to mr. economics that if they are making million dollar bonuses that those bonuses are not random, but based on production?
BAD MORTGAGES created by FNMA (FEDS) have caused a meltdown???
MR. ECONOMICS SOLUTION IS TO ALLOW 125% LTV REFIS.
IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR, WHILE A TYPICAL LOAN MIGHT BE 80% OF THE VALUE OF YOUR HOUSE, FOR YEARS THE FEDS HAD THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A HOUSE AND MADE LOANS AT 97% OF THE VALUE, SO THE OWNER HAD LITTLE MONEY INVESTED. IN ADDITION THEY WERE GIVEN LOW INTEREST RATES THAT ADJUSTED LATER TO MARKET VALUE.
VALUES FLUCTUATED AND RATES VENT TO MARKET AND PEOPLE WERE IN TROUBLE.
BECAUSE OF THE TROUBLE LENDING 97% LOANS CREATED, OBAMA DECIDED THE SOLUTION WAS TO LEND 125%.
SO ONE CAN BORROW 125,000 ON A HOUSE WORTH ONLY $100,000.
Obama decides that people are hurting because they borrowed too much on their house, so lend them more? While this might have some fragile rationale if rates were super high and could be refied at lower rates so that 125% was actually a lower payment than 97%, but rates have been stable and most of these loans were sup-prime (way lower than the new market rate).
You can't pay your mortgage, so we will lend you more, and you have a profit incentive to walk off because we lent you more than the house is worth.
Skipped economics class and still made the oval office.
It's true that Wall St. bonuses are not "random", but it's far from the truth that they're based on contribution to the company's bottom line. Many of the people who got seven- & 8-figure bonuses in '07 & '08 were the same people who were responsible for the losses that brought down firms like AIG & Merrill. And while it's true that the explosion of sub-prime mortgages over the past 10 years or so is at the heart of what is being called 'The Great Recession'(putting it all in CAPS doesn't make it any more true) it is absolutely preposterous to blame Obama for this explosion. The subprime mortgage market experienced its biggest growth during Clinton & Bush. By the time Obama was in office that bubble had already burst. I know that many people on the right, especially those who think Palin is something more than an ex-beauty queen spouting one-line drivel, like to blame everything on Obama but the truth behind the financial mess from which (I hope) we're now emerging is far more complex. Which is probably why rabid right-wingers don't understand it.
I thought this was a small but meaningful step forward on GLBT issues: Hospitals must grant visitations to same-sex partners
- James
Did anyone catch Jon Stewart's rant on Obama's human rights policies last night? It was pretty brutal.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah
Dave
Brutal? Sure, maybe. Deserved. Oh hell yes.
(Grrrr, work still hasn't installed Adobe Flash...)
I caught Jon Stewart last night. Totally awesome and absolutely dead-on. Whatever happened to the guy who said he'd close Gitmo & bring transparency to the Executive Branch? Obama's embracing and extending many of Duh-bya's most egregious actions, unequivocally breaking many of the promises that made me one of his enthusiastic supporters during his campaign. At this point I find myself wondering if he had been insincere from the outset or if this is a case of power corrupting. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think it's the latter but the end result is the same either way so I guess it doesn't really matter. Also, given the utterly uninspiring line-up of Republican presidential hopefuls I'll probably wind up voting for Obama in '12.
Yeah, it pissed me off. I shared that on Facebook. The worst part was having a "friend" ( Brother's ex-girlfriend ) who is a right wing ideologue respond:
Does anyone else think that Obama should waive the Jones Act so that foreign ships can help with the Gulf clean up?
Does anyone think that a month is not enough time to make the decision?
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/12/what-is-the-jones-act-and-why-wont-obama-waive-it/
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=6567
Does anyone think you're just regurgitating Republican talking points which also happen to be flat-out lies? I do.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/06/16/palin-lies-about-obama-refusing-foreign-assistance-in-gulf/
And just in case you want to attack that site, here are the primary sources:
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/660195/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-061010
Has the Jones Act been waived yet? No, because it hasn't had to happen for foreign flag vessels to operate in the Gulf.
Has the Obama administration accepted help in the form of foreign flag vessels and technology? Yes, it absolutely has.
Got any more lies for us, Wino?
Maddow's reworking of his speech was brilliant.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37744753#37744753
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... (49 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: