Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would it be possible for you to enumerate the domestic policies that you think are close to "epic fail"? Particularly those in his manifesto that the majority voted for, rather than just those you disagreed with on principle.

The most obvious is Health Care reform, the goal is becomign more and mroe elusive. Most Americans recognize the need for reform, but if this is negotiating it, he is an aweful negotiator. His goal is gettign further and further away from him because of bad tactics and worse strategy.

Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.

Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?

I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.

There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.

[seireikhaan]

The most obvious is Health Care reform, the goal is becomign more and mroe elusive. Most Americans recognize the need for reform, but if this is negotiating it, he is an aweful negotiator. His goal is gettign further and further away from him because of bad tactics and worse strategy.

Would any of this have to do with outlandish claims such as "death panels" that keep getting thrown out by the RNC, in blatant attempts to do nothing but stop any reform, regardless of what is in it? Bearing in mind, the Prez is not responsible for legislation anyways. Surely someone as concerned with checks and balances would recognize that it is congress' failing for not settling on adequate legislation? Obama can be a cheerleader or bully, but nothing more.

Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.

I'm assuming you were referring to the situation with the Harvard professor? He was entirely correct in in assessing that the officers behaved poorly. Further, the situations seems fairly resolved and out of the news. Blew by in a week or two, and haven't heard from it since. Not exactly a thunderstorm of activity, especially considering it was the media who felt it was so important despite that it was a brief statement about at the very end of a q&a about healthcare.

Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?

What center? I am hearing of no center. I hear of people screaming "don't socialize my medicare!" and "Those objectors are acting like nazis!" I hear very few in the center, because both republican and democrat are making so bizarre and false claims about the other that everything else is drowned out in our never ending, real life Jerry Springer episode.

As for his communication, he sure seems to be making a pretty strong effort to get his own message out there, whether via email, facebook, etc.... You are correct, however, that rationalization seems not oft-well communicated in these attempts.

I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.

There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.

Again, I do not see how you can blame him for the unity issue- the RNC is being stunningly obstinate. Obama greets the possibility of cutting medicare expenses for the budget hawks, and Steel rejects the notion and even goes to the effort to "warn seniors" of the possibility. So even when Obama does try to throw out ideas for Republicans to work with, they're spitting back in his face anyways. I fail to see how he's responsible for that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So you blame the Republicans for his failures to date? Or are you saying that there have been no failures?

[seireikhaan]

So you blame the Republicans for his failures to date? Or are you saying that there have been no failures?

How on earth do you interpret my previous statements like that? I explained what I interpreted point by point, the least you could do is give the courtesy of doing likewise instead of trying to throw me into a corner. I think I've explained my position adequately on your claims, and if you aren't willing to engage in constructive debate, then I am done.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would any of this have to do with outlandish claims such as "death panels" that keep getting thrown out by the RNC, in blatant attempts to do nothing but stop any reform, regardless of what is in it? Bearing in mind, the Prez is not responsible for legislation anyways. Surely someone as concerned with checks and balances would recognize that it is congress' failing for not settling on adequate legislation? Obama can be a cheerleader or bully, but nothing more. .

Blaming Republicans instead. I'm sure he'll take the credit if it happens

I'm assuming you were referring to the situation with the Harvard professor? He was entirely correct in in assessing that the officers behaved poorly. Further, the situations seems fairly resolved and out of the news. Blew by in a week or two, and haven't heard from it since. Not exactly a thunderstorm of activity, especially considering it was the media who felt it was so important despite that it was a brief statement about at the very end of a q&a about healthcare.
.

You are saying that the president was right to immediately assume that the officers had behaved poorly. I don't agree; that the officers behaved poorly or that he should have jumped to that conclusion as an auto trigger.

What center? I am hearing of no center. I hear of people screaming "don't socialize my medicare!" and "Those objectors are acting like nazis!" I hear very few in the center, because both republican and democrat are making so bizarre and false claims about the other that everything else is drowned out in our never ending, real life Jerry Springer episode. .

You are claiming that there is no center.

As for his communication, he sure seems to be making a pretty strong effort to get his own message out there, whether via email, facebook, etc.... You are correct, however, that rationalization seems not oft-well communicated in these attempts..

Thanks. Fair.

Again, I do not see how you can blame him for the unity issue- the RNC is being stunningly obstinate. Obama greets the possibility of cutting medicare expenses for the budget hawks, and Steel rejects the notion and even goes to the effort to "warn seniors" of the possibility. So even when Obama does try to throw out ideas for Republicans to work with, they're spitting back in his face anyways. I fail to see how he's responsible for that.

Blaming Republicans instead.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How on earth do you interpret my previous statements like that? I explained what I interpreted point by point, the least you could do is give the courtesy of doing likewise instead of trying to throw me into a corner. I think I've explained my position adequately on your claims, and if you aren't willing to engage in constructive debate, then I am done.

Clearly you aren't communicating your message clearly to the people of the backroom. Tuff is not at fault for ignoring the point, it's all on you

[ICantSpellDawg]

Clearly you aren't communicating your message clearly to the people of the backroom. Tuff is not at fault for ignoring the point, it's all on you

Finally, somebody gets it.

[seireikhaan]

Blaming Republicans instead. I'm sure he'll take the credit if it happens

Somewhat. I was blaming both republicans and congress as a whole, which is of course controlled by democrats. To say I was blaming Republicans only is selective reading.

You are saying that the president was right to immediately assume that the officers had behaved poorly. I don't agree; that the officers behaved poorly or that he should have jumped to that conclusion as an auto trigger.

Immediately assume? You act as though there were not accounts of it. There was fault on both sides of the incident(the professor and the officers), but frankly, that a man can be held up while getting into his own home is frankly absurd. I would probably be angry myself if such an incident happened.

You are claiming that there is no center.

Hardly. I'm pointing out that nobody can hear the center due to the left/right shout match. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Blaming Republicans instead.

On the instance of your accusation of a lack of unity, yes. The RNC is being quite uncooperative, even when pro-traditional republican pillars of political philosophy are handed out. You did not counter this.

Clearly you aren't communicating your message clearly to the people of the backroom. Tuff is not at fault for ignoring the point, it's all on you

If I was unclear, then Tuff should have queried my point in a manner that wasn't aggressive, absurd, and, quite honestly, irritating.

[Lemur]

Don't mind Sasaki Kojiro, Shinseikhaan. He doesn't participate in conversations much, but he's a real firecracker when it comes to declaring who is and is not communicating adequately. He operates exclusively on the meta-conversational level. It's all terribly postmodern.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I was unclear, then Tuff should have queried my point in a manner that wasn't aggressive, absurd, and, quite honestly, irritating.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. In this case, you are as obama, trying to have an open discussion with people of the backroom, and Tuff is as the RNC, deliberately avoiding such discussion and then blaming you for not having one.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, I was agreeing with you. In this case, you are as obama, trying to have an open discussion with people of the backroom, and Tuff is as the RNC, deliberately avoiding such discussion and then blaming you for not having one.

Right. Can you honestly say that you are not slightly bummed by Obama's performance in general? Even I thought he'd be a more impressive President. Blame the Republicans alll you wan't, but what did you think was going to happen when he tried to get the policies of the left put in to place? Were we supposed to roll over and like it?

You honestly think that the public option is reasonable and non-partisan? Or what about the reports that the option itself is holding health care reform hostage? "There will be no reform without a public option". BS. They have helped alienate themselves on the issue, take it or leave it. Of course the government will have to subsidize those who are unwilling or unable to pay for their own health care, but a public system is a new entitlement.

Republicans are just another opposition party. You villify them all you wan't, but the emotional arguement that "Republicans are bad and Democrats are your friends" is running out of juice. We want to get back to negotiating ground and we will. It is hard to do that currently so we need to get there through attrition.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Right. Can you honestly say that you are not slightly bummed by Obama's performance in general? Even I thought he'd be a more impressive President. Blame the Republicans alll you wan't, but what did you think was going to happen when he tried to get the policies of the left put in to place? Were we supposed to roll over and like it?

I haven't payed much attention to the news and won't until it's time to vote again. You can't tell if most presidents are good until maybe 20 years later. In any case, I do believe that most forward progress is made in small steps, which aren't necessarily impressive.

You honestly think that the public option is reasonable and non-partisan? Or what about the reports that the option itself is holding health care reform hostage? "There will be no reform without a public option". BS. They have helped alienate themselves on the issue, take it or leave it. Of course the government will have to subsidize those who are unwilling or unable to pay for their own health care, but a public system is a new entitlement.

I know very little about it. A shame, but I don't have any effect on the outcome right now anyway

Republicans are just another opposition party. You villify them all you wan't, but the emotional arguement that "Republicans are bad and Democrats are your friends" is running out of juice. We want to get back to negotiating ground and we will. It is hard to do that currently so we need to get there through attrition.

The only time real negotiation occurs in when they need the votes to pass the bill, or when it's not a divisive issue. The party with the votes makes a show of it, and the party without the votes complains about it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Van Jones is gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Van Jones is gone. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

Indeed. The racist 9/11 'truther' is out and we're all the better for it.

It'll be interesting to see if the major media finally starts covering it.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank you for the response, Tuff. Apologies for the thread having moved on a bit since I asked.

The most obvious is Health Care reform, the goal is becomign more and mroe elusive. Most Americans recognize the need for reform, but if this is negotiating it, he is an aweful negotiator. His goal is gettign further and further away from him because of bad tactics and worse strategy.

I agree that the goal he set out is receding, but this often happens in a democracy where compromise is necessary. I would argue that he was much less radical than I expected him to be, so his inevitable compromises are watering down the proposals towards meaninglessness. My disappointment would be that he does not seem to be as courageous for change as initially hoped, but that is always the case - once governing, reality steps in as the art of the possible.

You say that most Americans recognise the need for reform, but there is precious little evidence of that beyond a vague yearning. Like most electorates, they want something but don't want to face the hard consequences - such as paying for what they desire. The Opposition is exploiting this, rather destructively, in my opinion, rather than formulating a coherent, costed and popular alternative.

President Obama's real problem, it seems to me, is his own side. The Democratic Congress is not whipped (in the Parliamentary sense) and are focussing on personal electability and the usual pork provisions rather than the manifesto commitment to healthcare reform. I think he could do with being harder on them, but as someone else noted, in the end it is Congress that enacts legislation.

However, I don't see the epic fail. President Clinton failed on healthcare reform with a complete wipeout, and yet still got elected for a second term. An Obama failure would indeed be epic, but only for the millions of citizens with no access to healthcare, because no-one of any party will attempt reform for decades.

Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.

I wasn't aware that the president made general racial harmony a key plank of his manifesto. The mere fact that a person of colour was elected to the White House is the revolution. Centuries of racial division are hardly going to be erased by a president.

Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?

I would agree that I don't think he has found his stride yet. Healthcare is a big mire to jump into, but it is probably sensible to get in it early, since if it goes wrong he has a couple of years to recover. The economy is out of most administrations' hands across the world. While I disagree with the stimulus solutions, I am pretty sure that in three or four years' time, things will be looking much rosier and Obama will get the credit. His number one asset is that he is lucky.

I see no evidence that the centre is infuriated. I see lots of people at both ends of the extreme making "infuriated" into a career choice. I suspect most citizens who consider themselves rational and of the centre are quietly despairing at the nature of modern US politics. They are more concerned about their jobs etc than whether Obama is actually Hitler. As noted, in a couple of years when the storm clouds about the economy start lifting, they will vote for President Obama again - less enthusiastically, believing in miracles a little less, but grateful for the sea-change and fearing what the GOP may have frothed itself into.

I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.

Well, you made a point about domestic politics, so I will stick to that area of policy for fear of disagreeing with you on his competence.

There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.

I fear your great nation is hell-bent on the destruction of its democracy by embracing astonishing lunacies on both sides. As an outside observer, this started in its current horrible form when the Republicans decided to attack a popular President Clinton using impeachment instead of challenging him on policy. That and the stolen election of 2000 invoked a similarly feral attack mentality from the Democratic party, outmatched viciousness for viciousness by the Rove machine.

This increasing contempt for the office of the President is reaching a nadir in this administration. There are things now said as mainstream that I would consider sedition and practically treasonable. The country - now so dependent on media - appears almost unable to source unbiased news and politicians do not appeal to the intellect of the citizenry, but their basest instincts. There is precious little debate from the Opposition, just more and more strident screeching.

This is not a malady that affects only the United States, but your obsession with entirely free speech has exacerbated it to the nth degree. I believe the great groundswell of affection for President Obama that had him elected was that people really did want a change - to intellectual, calm and reasoned leadership. I think he still brings that, and should the screaming from the other side abate, the people will continue to respond to that hope.

(But then it should be recalled that I am an Old World aristocrat, steeped in the belief that the peasantry need not be heeded all that much, and thusly my opinions on your brave New World are entirely irrelevant ).

[Hosakawa Tito]

This increasing contempt for the office of the President is reaching a nadir in this administration. There are things now said as mainstream that I would consider sedition and practically treasonable. The country - now so dependent on media - appears almost unable to source unbiased news and politicians do not appeal to the intellect of the citizenry, but their basest instincts. There is precious little debate from the Opposition, just more and more strident screeching.

This appears to be the campaigning strategy du jour for all levels of government be they local, state or federal. It's always been there to some degree, but seems to be getting worse every election cycle. The opposition employs divisive opportunity politics that caters to the fears & anger of the lunatic fringe instead of reasonable alternative compromises in order to discredit the party in power. Monied interests don't want significant change to their lucrative piece of the action and lavish "free speech" upon those that enact legislation to protect that interest. In regards to the health care industry that means profits-to-the-nth degree versus humanity. For the political class it's a win-win situation. Whatever happens they keep their platinum parachute health care & pensions.

We need to remove this political self interest and penchant for doing/saying anything to stay in power at our expense.....term limits/pension & health care limits for all politicians.

[Tribesman]

It'll be interesting to see if the major media finally starts covering it.

That is very sloppy journalism, did they ever consider just looking at the news sources for the news instead of doing a silly internet search?
What is funny though is that if you type those actual words in you get loads of matches , all from wingnut bloggers repeating the examiner "news" story

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are things now said as mainstream that I would consider sedition and practically treasonable.

America's democracy is incredibly sturdy, the people embrace freedom and their state as a core value of Americanism, and there is no international storm brewing. Thank Heavens, because other than that, I sometimes feel like reading extracts directly from Spain, 1935. Lunatuc fringes screaming so loud and intermittently, that the centre gets crushed.

Call me postmodern, but I'm with Sasaki. His take on the RNC is spot on.

(But then it should be recalled that I am an Old World aristocrat, steeped in the belief that the peasantry need not be heeded all that much, and thusly my opinions on your brave New World are entirely irrelevant ).

Pah! Admit it...deep down inside, you are a revolutionary.

Reactionary aristocracism is for trade anyway, for those parvenus without the assured calmness of mind that security of position through anciennity brings.

La Fayette you'd be to America.

[Banquo's Ghost]

La Fayette you'd be to America.

Sir, you do me too much honour.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thank you for the response, Tuff. Apologies for the thread having moved on a bit since I asked.

No prob. Thanks for the response to my response.


We live in the most powerful nation on earth. The most power hungry people on earth come here to gain the pinnacle prize. Would you expect civility? We arn't some backwater like we were in the 1800's. Jerks arn't playing for peanuts and small fries like they are in the various European countries. We get the real baddies angling for power here.

There will be blood in the streets again, you can almost guarantee it. We are animals after all and we love war.

There is quite a bit to Ron Paul's vision for America - a smaller, state centered power net merely protected by a federalized system from external threats. That's a new concept. You want a more stable United States with less global dominance? Encourage us to get back to our roots.

[KukriKhan]

Pah! Admit it...deep down inside, you are a revolutionary.



La Fayette you'd be to America.

Heh. With a healthy dose of de Tocqueville.

[Xiahou]

Indeed. The racist 9/11 'truther' is out and we're all the better for it.

It'll be interesting to see if the major media finally starts covering it.

CR

You'll love this. It's a Meet the Press clip, where they, using Van Jones as an example, bemoan how the Internet and bloggers are able to dig up everything about people's history(that they themselves miss). They go on to lament the free flow of information, calling it "an open sewer" and warning people against consuming news without a filter (ie: them). My expression during most of this:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You'll love this. It's a Meet the Press clip, where they, using Van Jones as an example, bemoan how the Internet and bloggers are able to dig up everything about people's history(that they themselves miss). They go on to lament the free flow of information, calling it "an open sewer" and warning people against consuming news without a filter (ie: them). My expression during most of this:

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject. They weren't bemoaning that van jones was caught out. They don't object to the internet necessarily either, just the way people take information they read their for granted. I think we can all agree with that.

Though I wouldn't place to much trust in what I heard on meet the press either

[Lemur]

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject.

Full clip.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Full clip.

A true bastion of objectivity that "Meet the Press" is.

[Lemur]

A true bastion of objectivity that "Meet the Press" is.

Yup, with screaming leftines such as Rudy Giuliani beating the drum for socialism.

Face it, the people making noise about Obama talking to schoolchildren are out of their minds. And many of the loudest are hypocrites.

There once was a political operative who loved to tell crowds he had a simple way of explaining to children the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

"Republicans get up and go to work," he would tell his son. "Democrats get up and go down to the mailbox to get their checks."

This man not only talked to his son about Republican values, he went into public-school classrooms and talked about them as well.

That man is Jim Greer — the same Jim Greer who, as chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, just threw a nationwide hissy fit, claiming that the classroom is no place for politics and Barack Obama's "indoctrination."

One Seminole County mother, Barbara Wells, remembers the day Greer spoke to her son's sixth-grade class. "My son said he made some sort of Hillary Clinton joke," she recalled.

But you know what? Wells didn't pitch a fit.

She didn't call up the local TV station to scream about Republican indoctrination.

Instead, she advised her son: "Whatever you are told in life, remember there are two sides to every story."

In fact, Wells didn't even think much about Greer's foray into her son's classroom until she saw him on TV complaining about Obama.

There's no longer any question: Greer is a hypocrite.

[Xiahou]

More like they were talking about van jones and segued into a different subject.

Nope. Lemur was nice enough to prove that theory wrong.

They don't object to the internet necessarily either, just the way people take information they read their for granted. I think we can all agree with that.

Yeah, the guy just calls it 'an open sewer'. We all know that open sewers have lots of positive qualities too... right? The insipid, self-serving nature of their discussion just wowed me. Using Van Jones(a case in point of them completely dropping the ball and the "open sewer" succeeding where they failed) as a jumping off point was the icing on the cake.

Though I wouldn't place to much trust in what I heard on meet the press either

That's the whole point.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup, with screaming leftines such as Rudy Giuliani beating the drum for socialism.

Face it, the people making noise about Obama talking to schoolchildren are out of their minds[/INDENT]

Fox news usually has a token liberal in their midst, but I wouldn't hear you argueing for their objectivity. Who were the other guests at the well-rounded table?

Many of the loudest are usually hippocrites. I believe that he is able to address school children. What people are concerned about is the level of audacity in his approach to things. He is taking liberties that other Presidents wouldn't take. More money to government, more power to government. The same guy wants to have an unfiltered one on one with impressionable minds and it can leave people a bit queesy. Sure he can, he is the President, but when consolidating federal authority seems to be his hallmark thus far, an approach on children understandably makes parents who disagree uneasy.

Hell, I havn't gotten over the idea of state funded teachers forcibly gaining parental rights over our children without our consent, but I must be a wingnut.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nope. Lemur was nice enough to prove that theory wrong.

What?

You talk about Van Jones as well, you know, the fact that in this, in this media age, what he said, by anybody's estimation, was objectionable, to sign a petition saying the government was behind 9/11. But it goes to something that's going on in this information age...

Before this they were talking about obama giving a speech at a school. An unrelated subject.

They were talking about obama giving a speech at a school and then mentioned van jones and transitioned into a new subject.

Yeah, the guy just calls it 'an open sewer'. We all know that open sewers have lots of positive qualities too... right? The insipid, self-serving nature of their discussion just wowed me. Using Van Jones(a case in point of them completely dropping the ball and the "open sewer" succeeding where they failed) as a jumping off point was the icing on the cake.

You can pull the open sewer comment out as often as you like, but do you disagree with what he was saying or just the word choice?

MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, David, I just want to say one thing to pick up on Tom's point, which is the Internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information, left, right, center, up, down, and requires that kind of filtering by anyone. And I always felt, you know, when modems first came out, when that was how we got connected to the Internet, that every modem sold in America should actually come with a warning from the surgeon general that would have said, "judgment not included," OK? That you have to upload the old-fashioned way. Church, synagogue, temple, mosque, teachers, schools, you know. And too often now people say, and we've all heard it, "But I read it on the Internet," as if that solves the bar bet, you know? And I'm afraid not.

In googling to find the transcript I went through the sean hannity forums and and angry ranting blogger

That's the whole point.

Pick a tv news show at random and pick a blog at random and which will be better? The tv news by leaps and bounds. Cherry picking one example of a failure by the msm says very little, however annoying you find their tone. And they don't "lament the free flow of information" and suggest that "all the news should be filtered through them", which you said originally. If I were to cherry pick an example of a failure of internet reporting

[Strike For The South]

So a 6 minute speech by Obama is going to undo years of parenting? Our president has a cult of personality but it's filled with people who think he's a supervillan.