The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

And back to health care - when the "public option" went away there was a very brief backlash here, and someone here said they wouldn't vote for Obama in the primaries if that was the case. (I'll try to find who that was).

it was probably me. and although that was a knee-jerk reaction I could very possibly lean towards actually carrying through on it.

[JPhillips]

I do think that there's plenty of regular people that didn't expect a golden age, but certainly expected foreign policy differences from Bush.

And there are foreign policy differences.

-Missile shield in Europe
-Forming stronger international bonds to pressure Iran
-Closing Gitmo
-Plans to end Iraq occupation
-Much more aggressive strikes on Taliban/AQ in Pakistan
-Working with Pakistan to get much greater cooperation in Taliban/AQ attacks
-Strict prohibition on torture

These are just off the top of my head. You don't have to agree with them, but saying they are the same as Bush is foolish.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it was probably me. and although that was a knee-jerk reaction I could very possibly lean towards actually carrying through on it.

Ya, it looks like you and SteveBollea who said he was going to vote 3rd party in 2012. I wonder if he still feels that way.

It amazing how things evolve in a short period of time - SteveBollea correctly pointed out back in those posts that the public option WAS the compromise. Now, any health care "reform" that actually gets through will be bragged about by the administration and the party as a huge success (under the "Better than Bush" rhetoric which has made an appearance here again) when back then, the base was freaking out just because the public option was on the fence.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I think, though I'm not sure, that the implication was that Dick Cheney just got off torturing people and that was the driving force behind Bush's foreign policy.

I actually remember addressing this to the contrary, but don't let me derail your misinformation express.

IIRC, I responded to this by saying that Cheney & his acolytes really believe that counter-terrorism is like "24" when people with actual experience in counter-terrorism, including successful interrogators view Jack Bauer's methods as pretty much exactly the wrong ones.

But clearly I'm the one divorced from reality.

But Obama faced the realities of national security and started saying the same things that I and many others were saying back then (both about GITMO, and about civilian trials), and now suddenly nobody cares anymore.

We still care, it's just that progress is being made. How are you not getting this?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We still care, it's just that progress is being made. How are you not getting this?

I don't think good intention count for much. If someone promises something and they can't do it, that isn't better than someone who doesn't promise something because they know it's not realistic.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What if someone promises something and they can't do it to completion, but makes the situation better than it was before?

Just want to be sure I'm feeling the way you think I should.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

... that isn't better than someone who doesn't promise something because they know it's not realistic.

Or because they know it isn't even desirable but has to appease the ill-advised masses.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You laugh at my 80% number, but interestingly don't quote my point about "bringing about a new way of doing business in Washington" being the central point of a ton of Obama's campaign speeches. Go ahead and google that phrase and variations of it in the context of Obama's campaign speeches. It's all over the place.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh please. McCain, in both word & action, offered little to indicate he'd do much else besides continue Bush's policies. If you think the current president is going in the wrong direction (and a majority of Americans did) and you're offered the choice between someone who will continue on the same path as the current president, and someone who says he'll go in a different direction, it certainly makes sense to vote for the second guy.

(Yes, yes panerd & Bucc, maybe it makes more sense to vote for another guy altogether.)

For the converse, see 1988.

I can't disagree with much you've said here. I'm not sure that the only conclusion is to vote for the second guy but I agree that you've outlined the reasoning behind voting for the second guy, no matter how flawed it may be. My argument is that it's a lousy reason to vote for a guy, but we had millions of bumper stickers saying that exact thing. As long as we continue to vote for the other guy just because he's not that guy, we're not optimizing our chances to have a good leader that makes good decisions IMO.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

What if someone promises something and they can't do it to completion, but makes the situation better than it was before?

Just want to be sure I'm feeling the way you think I should.

I guess it depends on what you're talking about-

I don't think GITMO's really better or that any progress has been made there - the number of inmates there has been steadily declining since it was established. Most of the ones that are left are headed toward military tribunals, just as they were with Bush. (Hillariously, they'll give civilian trials to the slam-dunk cases and military tribunals to the guys who can't be convicted under civilian rules of evidence - how this is an "improvement" to someone who believes in civilian trials for terrorists I have no idea)

Public endorsements of torture have gone away, which is good. IMO, It's just going on now secretly, like it did under every other administration except Bush, who foolishly tried to justify it to the masses.

It's hard to imagine Iraq/Afghanistan being much different at this point no matter who was president.

Nothing's happened with health care yet - I'm sure SOMETHING will be passed eventually, I just hope it's not a step backwards from real reform.

The world does like us more, I know that was hugely important to some people.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I was referring to GITMO/torture, which is what you were referring to immediately before.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; I do think that there has been incremental progress in improving that situation. You obviously think it's exactly the same as under Bush.

edit: It's difficult to respond to your points when you consistently edit your posts minutes after posting them.

[miked]

I guess this is why presidential terms are more than a year?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I was referring to GITMO/torture, which is what you were referring to immediately before.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; I do think that there has been incremental progress in improving that situation. You obviously think it's exactly the same as under Bush.

I totally agree with Molson here. They've made progress in being smart enough to cover up and outsource the torture behind the scenes as was done before. Having Bush/Cheney explain torture was like having Bill Clinton explain what constituted sexual relations with a woman.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

You laugh at my 80% number

Yes I do. The claim that roughly 52 million people voted for Obama because he said he'd bring about a new way of doing business in Washington is risible.

Now, if you said 52 million people voted for Obama because he wasn't McCain, I might believe that.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As long as we continue to vote for the other guy just because he's not that guy, we're not optimizing our chances to have a good leader that makes good decisions IMO.

That would be a fine argument if we weren't presented with a binary decision every time this comes up. The issue doesn't rest in the rationale people use to pick one of two guys for president. The issue rests with the long, long road that is taken to get to the point where a particular two guys become candidates.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

I guess this is why presidential terms are more than a year?

And a year from now, we'll hear "I guess this is why presidential terms are more than two years." It won't be any better of a point than it saying it's only been a year, but it will surely be used.

A close runner up is Obama saying he'd rather be a good one-term president than a lousy two-term president. You've got to be good in the first term before you can make that claim.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That would be a fine argument if we weren't presented with a binary decision every time this comes up. The issue doesn't rest in the rationale people use to pick one of two guys for president. The issue rests with the long, long road that is taken to get to the point where a particular two guys become candidates.

And more specifically, the lack of involvement by the voting public in the state primaries that select the candidates. People bitch about the fact that there's only two choices, but there is an opportunity to select from varying viewpoints within the party to some extent.

[miked]

Well, at least we know you won't be biased in your posts. Oh wait.

I agree with your second comment. Nothing wrong though with saying that in general. I mean, I'd rather be rich than poor, don't we all say what we want to happen?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

edit: It's difficult to respond to your points when you consistently edit your posts minutes after posting them.

Sorry about that, I should have added a new post there because that edit sums up the whole thing to me.

I don't remember a single poster/campaign promise saying that we should give civilian trials when there's zero risk of acquittal, but if a terrorist, for a variety of reasons, couldn't be convicted under civilian burdens of proof and evidentiary rules, then we should give them a military tribunal and lock them up for forever.

The Bush administration knew that civilian trials were unrealistic, so they didn't purse them, and were hammered. Obama has now come to the same conclusion (except for a couple of hand-picked show trials with nothing at stake), and it's completely OK. Did Obama learn this on the job, or did he lie to everyone to get votes? Does it matter?

Is the "improvement" in the rhetoric of idealism? Because I don't see any in practical reality.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

I guess this is why presidential terms are more than a year?

I would love for the government to figure out how to reform healthcare (bring costs down first, cover or facilitate coverage of more people/everyone second), and make and encourage creative and dramatic advances in the way we consume and utilize energy. I'd vote for anybody who could pull off just those things.

Those things represent the future of our economy, budget, security, and environment. I don't think either of these things will ever happen though, and I don't think I'll ever even be given the chance to vote for anyone who can make those things happen.

Edit: I don't think those two things require "big government" to solve everything. I'm not smart enough have all the answers, but believe that the best chance of success is a government that understands its role and is extraordinarily supportive of private industries/non-profits.

Obama is just kind of a red herring. He's not the guy that's going to make anything better.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A close runner up is Obama saying he'd rather be a good one-term president than a lousy two-term president. You've got to be good in the first term before you can make that claim.

Er, no.

It's not a claim, it's a statement of aspiration. Therefore, it's not a comprehensive either-or.

Unless I misread Obama's statement and he claimed he already was a good president in his first term.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama is just kind of a red herring.

You damned fascist, trying to insinuate that Obama is a Communist.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Er, no.

It's not a claim, it's a statement of aspiration. Therefore, it's not a comprehensive either-or.

Unless I misread Obama's statement and he claimed he already was a good president in his first term.

Point taken. It's an aspiration that he's falling short of at this point.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The Bush administration knew that civilian trials were unrealistic, so they didn't purse them, and were hammered.

Yet the Bush administration allowed Richard Reid, Aafia Siddiqui, Mohammed Babar and others to be tried (and convinced) in civilian courts.

Let's also remember that the Bush administration also muddied the waters by their liberal use of torture on these detainees, meaning there's plenty of evidence that will now be inadmissable certainly in civilian courts and probably in military tribunals.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes I do. The claim that roughly 52 million people voted for Obama because he said he'd bring about a new way of doing business in Washington is risible.

There's no way that was the "only" reason, but I believe that it was a factor for a huge majority.

When Obama preached about "changing the way business was done in Washington", did you believe him, or do you just think that falls under "acceptable campaign fluff/lies".

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

I would love for the government to figure out how to reform healthcare (bring costs down first, cover or facilitate coverage of more people/everyone second), and make and encourage creative and dramatic advances in the way we consume and utilize energy. I'd vote for anybody who could pull off just those things.

Those things represent the future of our economy, budget, security, and environment. I don't think either of these things will ever happen though, and I don't think I'll ever even be given the chance to vote for anyone who can make those things happen.

Obama is just kind of a red herring. He's not the guy that's going to make anything better.

I agree. I don't think it was ever expected that he would actually accomplish all of that, let alone make significant progress in a year...especially with senate members who vote against bills they sponsor. But I'm not really about blaming the party of no, I place equal blame on the party of no activity. But I mean to think that all of this falls on the president is a little short-sighted. Sure, he can try and set policy but we all know Congress is where bills are made and passed.

I think the majority of the public isn't looking for a savior, they are looking for somebody who won't fuck things up too much. They looked at McCain and Palin and saw two people, both of whom just wanted to stay the course. I voted for Obama, but really didn't care for him all that much. I would've voted for a dildo over McCain/Palin; at least I don't have to listen to the dumb rednecks cheer while I'm getting it in the ass from the dildo.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yet the Bush administration allowed Richard Reid, Aafia Siddiqui, Mohammed Babar and others to be tried (and convinced) in civilian courts.

Let's also remember that the Bush administration also muddied the waters by their liberal use of torture on these detainees, meaning there's plenty of evidence that will now be inadmissable certainly in civilian courts and probably in military tribunals.

I'm not saying Bush was any kind of foreign policy wizard. If everyone is ultimately satisifed with a "better than Bush" final assessment of Obama's presidency, I'm sure they won't be dissapointed. But I think this was such a gradual let-down from the campaign that few noticed.

The whole civilian trial/military tribunal song and dance has been butchered by everyone. A formal, consistently applied tribunal process should have been in place years ago.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

I would've voted for a dildo over McCain/Palin

Apparently you did.

at least I don't have to listen to the dumb rednecks cheer while I'm getting it in the ass from the dildo.

You ain't heard nothing yet, I assure you. The ecstasy of ridding the nation of Obama & the majority of his cronies would set off a four year celebration that will be loud and hopefully unrelenting.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

I think the majority of the public isn't looking for a savior, they are looking for somebody who won't fuck things up too much.

I think that's true of most presidential elections, including Bill Clinton's, but I still think something different was going on with Obama (not for everyone, but definitely for the younger, first- or second-time voting crowd. There was litterally celebrations in the street.) Maybe I've just been brainwashed by the media as to the extent of the hysteria.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You ain't heard nothing yet, I assure you. The ecstasy of ridding the nation of Obama & the majority of his cronies would set off a four year celebration that will be loud and hopefully unrelenting.

I doubt it. This is, after all, the same demographic who can't even make it through a NASCAR race anymore.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The ecstasy of ridding the nation of Obama & the majority of his cronies would set off a four year celebration that will be loud and hopefully unrelenting.

As opposed to the current bitchfest that is loud and unrelenting? How on earth will we be able to tell the difference?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You ain't heard nothing yet, I assure you. The ecstasy of ridding the nation of Obama & the majority of his cronies would set off a four year celebration that will be loud and hopefully unrelenting.

I think that hysteria would be equally as silly as the pro-Obama hysteria.

I'm not going to be celebrating in any streets screaming about a revolution if Obama loses to Mitt Romney. (Though I'm sure many will if, god forbid, Sarah Palin is elected.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

As opposed to the current bitchfest that is loud and unrelenting? How on earth will we be able to tell the difference?

Trust me, you'll know, at least you will if the noise of the celebration is accompanied by an insistence on better performance (no secret that I was disappointed by Bush's second term in particular).

At the moment, there's little we can do but bitch & try to thwart the enemy at every turn. Hopefully next time we won't see people lose their nerve & fail to follow through on matters that need to be addressed.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the moment, there's little we can do but bitch & try to thwart the enemy at every turn.

we're fucking lucky this attitude wasn't around a couple thousand years ago or we'd all still be wallowing in our own shit and living it mud houses and eating berries.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that's true of most presidential elections, including Bill Clinton's,

I disagree. Elections where things are generally going well (2000, 1996, 1988, 1984) are generally about who will fuck things up the least. I'll fully admit to not being overly worried about Bush's election in 2000 because I figured he wouldn't have the support or werewithal to do anything catastrophic. Boy howdy was I wrong.

Elections where things aren't going so well (2008, 2004, 1992, 1980) are about picking the guy you think has the best path (or the least worst path) forward. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean the incumbent is fucked. As pointed out in 2004, the incumbent who caused the problems can still win if he's got a better message than his opponent.

but I still think something different was going on with Obama (not for everyone, but definitely for the younger, first- or second-time voting crowd. There was litterally celebrations in the street.) Maybe I've just been brainwashed by the media as to the extent of the hysteria.

If you take the historic nature of the moment of the first black president being elected and add it to the fact that, for many, the Bush administration was, especially by its end, the worst period in their lifetime, it's easy to understand the elation. You don't even need to get into unicorns and ponies to understand it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you take the historic nature of the moment of the first black president being elected and add it to the fact that, for many, the Bush administration was, especially by its end, the worst period in their lifetime, it's easy to understand the elation. You don't even need to get into unicorns and ponies to understand it.

I can understand the first black president angle. That's worthy of some celebration.

I think though, that there was this huge myth that exploded in our culture about Bush = my life being bad, Obama = my life being good. Bush was assumed to have this god-like mystique and ability to personally alter the fate of every individual American. Everything in culture, every problem, came back to him in some way, in that myth. I guess from that, you're going to have huge hyperbole at the end that carries over to the next guy in the opposite way.

[JPhillips]

59,000,000 people voted for Kerry in 2004.

69,500,000 voted for Obama in 2008.

Seems at best 10.5 million voted because Obama was going to change everything.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

There's no way that was the "only" reason, but I believe that it was a factor for a huge majority.

When Obama preached about "changing the way business was done in Washington", did you believe him, or do you just think that falls under "acceptable campaign fluff/lies".

It may not be as far as you or I or unnamed hippie expected, but there have been a lot of changes to how the executive branch works. The number of lobbyists in government is significantly lower. Visitor logs for the White House are public for the first time ever. FOIA requests are answered quicker. And if I spent more time researching I could find other examples.

It's like Ronnie said, is there any credit given to not reaching a goal, but moving closer towards it?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

59,000,000 people voted for Kerry in 2004.

69,500,000 voted for Obama in 2008.

Seems at best 10.5 million voted because Obama was going to change everything.

But 10.4 million of them voted for Obama because of Sarah Palin.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

When Obama preached about "changing the way business was done in Washington", did you believe him, or do you just think that falls under "acceptable campaign fluff/lies".

I believed he'd try, but I didn't think he'd succeed because I figured the Republicans in Congress would be in no mood to be bipartisan and the Democratic leadership in Congress wouldn't be able to move stuff along.

You can even see it in my Hopes & Predictions post on, I think, Page 4 of this thread.

Of course, the key question here is what you mean by "changing the way business is done in Washington". It can mean many different things to many different people, which is why it's always such a good campaign promise.

I'm sure some naive hippies heard this and envisioned Democrats and Republicans beavering away in bipartisan bliss while Saint Obama watched approvingly from on high.

I'm sure some people heard this and figured he'd try a more low-key engagement approach with specific GOP Reps & Senators in an attempt to pass some key legislation.

And I'm sure still some others figured that at the very least he'd not be quite as authoritarian and abusive towards Congress as the Bush White House was.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe I'm just having a blonde moment but ... what is "m/m"?

month over month, sorry

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

month over month, sorry

Thanks, it just didn't click for me when I read it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm sure some naive hippies heard this and envisioned Democrats and Republicans beavering away in bipartisan bliss while Saint Obama watched approvingly from on high.

Beavering away?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And a year from now, we'll hear "I guess this is why presidential terms are more than two years." It won't be any better of a point than it saying it's only been a year, but it will surely be used.

I dunno- I suppose it depends on what the year brings. And the next and the next.

What if he somehow passes banking reform, cap and trade, the house health care bill, successfully gets don't ask don't tell off the books, and card check this year? About as likely as the Nets winning the NBA title, I know. What if this year he doesn't do a thing because of election contentiousness and only gets banking reform done but comes back next year and does the rest? What if he does none of them and shows he's inept at any sort of Congressional wrangling? What if he does none of the above, coaxes them into passing some massive executive powers bill and after signing it, pulls off his mask to reveal he's Dick Cheney and then goes on to nuke Iran just because?

Lord knows I've written volumes here from praise to critique and we're only a year in. Yeah, I have hope that he will change things for the better. Yes, I also think he looks way in over his head right now politically with no idea of how to proceed to get what he wants done.

But I have no say in the matter for 3 more years so before I try to start examining his Presidency in a historical context, I'd like to see him actually get more than 1/4th or 1/8 of his term through. Hell, do what you want. I know I've made judgments already but they're subject to change with each decision considering how much and how widely a President effects the world with just what he does on a daily basis.

SI

[Arles]

If he passes cap and trade, there's a 0% chance our economy will be better a year from now (and will almost certainly be worse in many areas).

[DaddyTorgo]

Eighty percent of Americans polled by the Washington Post/ABC News oppose the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing unfettered corporate political spending.

"If there's one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it's that they don't want more special interests in our politics," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is spearheading the legislative effort, said in a statement after the poll was released Wednesday. ...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republican lawmakers have praised the high court ruling as a victory for free speech, however, and have signaled their intent to oppose any legislation intended to blunt the impact of the court's decision.

gee...out-of-touch much?

[DaddyTorgo]

also

AMMAN, Jordan — Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was nearing the end of a 25-minute question and answer session with troops serving here when he raised a topic of his own: "No one's asked me about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" he said.
As it turned out, none of the two dozen or so men or women who met with Mullen at Marine House in the Jordanian capital Tuesday had any questions on the 17-year-old policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military — or Mullen's public advocacy of its repeal.
Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Darryl E. Robinson, who's the operations coordinator for defense attache's office at the U.S. Embassy here, explained why after the session. "The U.S. military was always at the forefront of social change," he said. "We didn't wait for laws to change."
....
After Tuesday's question-and-answer session, Mullen told McClatchy that although he's held three town hall sessions with troops since his testimony, not a single service member has asked him about the issue.
At Tuesday's session, which included not only Marines, but members of the Army and the Air Force, both male and female service members explained why they were nonplussed by the issue: They'd already served with gays and lesbians, they accepted that some kind of change was imminent, and, they said, the nation was too engulfed in two wars for a prolonged debate about it.
That there's been so little reaction raises questions about how much study the issue needs and whether the Pentagon study is meant to pacify its concerns — or Congress'.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

gee...out-of-touch much?

Should the Supreme Court be beholden to public opinion?

[flere-imsaho]

I think DT was referring to Senator Mitch McConnell.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My bad if so. Looks that way upon rereading.

[DaddyTorgo]

yep. was referring to McConnell