The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Flasch186]

FWIW, Im for the repealing of DADT but raising the fact that no one asked a question of their superior' superior on the touchy subject isnt shocking or significant of the audience's feelings IMO. There have been many times where the CEO of the co. asks for questions and receives none or those that are the 'safest' for fear that they could become the bullseye when all you really want to do is your job, off the radar.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by 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).

I don't think there's any way it will pass, but I'd take that bet for any amount of money you wanted. If a cap and trade were to be passed it wouldn't kick in for a few years and it's very unlikely that the economy won't be even .5% better in a year.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Over lunch, they showed the 'town meeting' that Obama was holding with Harry Reid. Just seemed really awkward. Obama finished up his speech and then literally rolled up his sleeves to answer the questions, providing a PR scripted moment that would have made Tiger Woods proud.

[cartman]

Yeah, I mean it is like Obama has never rolled his sleeves up before. Gosh, what was he thinking?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, I mean it is like Obama has never rolled his sleeves up before. Gosh, what was he thinking?

Agreed. He's obviously been trained early on to roll up the sleeves when his appearance moves beyond the teleprompter to give that average man look. He does it a LOT as you have correctly pointed out.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. He's obviously been trained early on to roll up the sleeves when his appearance moves beyond the teleprompter to give that average man look. He does it a LOT as you have correctly pointed out.

Maybe. Or maybe he just hates feeling constricted inside the dress-shirt? I know when I've got one on I'm always waiting for the first instance to roll up the sleeves or get it off.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. He's obviously been trained early on to roll up the sleeves when his appearance moves beyond the teleprompter to give that average man look. He does it a LOT as you have correctly pointed out.

wow, youre on spincycle even regarding clothes. amazing.

BTW, notice the fed has already begun to unwind? You probably didnt notice that in your vilification tour.

[cartman]

So please explain, MBBF, if he rolls up his sleeves "a lot" as you have admitted, how is that considered a "PR scripted moment that would have made Tiger Woods proud"? That is akin to saying that playing "Enter Sandman" for Mariano Rivera in a World Series game is a "PR scripted moment", even though it is played anytime he enters the game during the regular season.

[Flasch186]

because it fits his narrative (year-long, month-long and daily) and never to be apologized for or admitted to when he is clearly wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

interesting piece bringing to light some points about the stimulus bill money flowing overseas

GOP Chairman Michael Steele blasted the Obama administration in a fund-raising email earlier this week for allowing stimulus money designated for clean energy solutions to be spent on overseas companies. Which is interesting, because stimulus money going to overseas firms was the direct result of conservative opposition to attempts to keep that money in America.

Steele wrote:

"Obama Promised Recovery Act "Will Create Good Jobs That Pay Well And Can't Be Shipped Overseas." (The White House, "Remarks By the President and the Vice President on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," 4/13/09)

REALITY: Recently Distributed Stimulus Funds Going To Foreign Corporations Creating Jobs Overseas. "Nearly half of the $2.4 billion in federal grant money awarded Wednesday to stimulate the U.S. economy and boost the production of hybrid and electric vehicles went to six companies with ties to places as far away as Russia, China, South Korea and France. ... But because so few American companies have the necessary technology, much of the money will initially go toward manufacturing electric vehicle batteries overseas." (Jerry Seper, "Obama Sends Stimulus Aid To Foreign Firms," The Washington Times, 8/6/09) "

Steele is pointing out a fact that United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard noted months ago on CAF’s website:

"Of the $1.05 billion in clean energy grants awarded by D.C., $849 million -- 84 percent -- went to foreign wind companies, according to an analysis by Russ Choma of the Investigative Reporting Workshop."

Gerard, who as president of the nation's largest industrial union in the country was intimately involved in the negotiations, said :

"A strong, broad Buy-American clause in the stimulus bill could have prevented the off-shoring of U.S. tax dollars intended to create jobs for unemployed Americans. My union, the United Steelworkers, and the AFL-CIO pushed hard for that language, and polls showed 86 percent of Americans supported it. Republicans and lobbyists for multinational corporations that wanted to spend U.S. tax money overseas opposed Buy American provisions.

Congress adopted weak, limited Buy American language. Now D.C. exports stimulus dollars to create jobs in foreign countries."

Republicans went all out attacking Buy America as "bad for America". Republican presidential candidate John McCain went on CBS's Face the Nation on February 8, 2009:
"I think it has policy changes in it which are fundamentally bad for America. For example, their ‘Buy America’ provision: that’s protectionism, and that did not work in any time in our history.”
As recently as October 2009, GOP Congressional leaders held an event to call for the rollback of Buy America provisions claiming that Buy America provisions were “costing American jobs.”
The truth is, as studies show, infrastructure investment can create by up to 33 percent more jobs when strong Buy America provisions are included.
It’s ironic that Republicans who make a point of using strong rhetoric against Islamo-fascist terrorists go mute as Wall Street economic terrorists attack our country’s manufacturing base by shipping jobs overseas.
Buy America provisions are supported by 86 percent of the American public who thinks American taxpayer money should go to create American jobs. Furthermore, as a recent Gallup/USA Today poll shows, America think the best way to create jobs in this creation is through protecting manufacturing from foreign threats.
Meanwhile, Steele issues another smoke-and-mirrors press release, hoping that voters won't recognize that his conservative party is opposed to a policy that is essential to allowing American manufacturing to revive.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

So please explain, MBBF, if he rolls up his sleeves "a lot" as you have admitted, how is that considered a "PR scripted moment that would have made Tiger Woods proud"? That is akin to saying that playing "Enter Sandman" for Mariano Rivera in a World Series game is a "PR scripted moment", even though it is played anytime he enters the game during the regular season.

He does it whenever he moves into a situation where he's engaging the audience in a town hall meeting. It's a move that's taught to upper management in most organizations to 'dress down' to their audience. It's certainly not a new technique by management figureheads. They still do it today because it's subtle, but very effective. I'm surprised there's any defensiveness on this topic. It's a precisely calculated move whether you like it or not.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

He does it whenever he moves into a situation where he's engaging the audience in a town hall meeting. It's a move that's taught to upper management in most organizations to 'dress down' to their audience. It's certainly not a new technique by management figureheads. They still do it today because it's subtle, but very effective. I'm surprised there's any defensiveness on this topic. It's a precisely calculated move whether you like it or not.

So then you admit it isn't anything special or unique, correct? Or is anytime someone does it, it can be considered a "PR scripted moment that would have made Tiger Woods proud"?

[gstelmack]

This just comes back to the fact that the Dems have a super-majority and should be doing what they think is right, instead of letting the Repubs water everything down and then blaming them for all the ills.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

So then you admit it isn't anything special or unique, correct?

I never did. I pointed out that it was just as scripted as the Tiger Woods news conference. It's strictly a PR move and your post pointed that out extremely well how he does it on a regular basis.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Or is anytime someone does it, it can be considered a "PR scripted moment that would have made Tiger Woods proud"?

It's an audience manipulation technique, same as those used by most any staged PR. In that respect it's fair enough to call it the same kind of thing.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's a move that's taught to upper management in most organizations

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's strictly a PR move

Can you please at least keep your excuses straight?

[molson]

You don't get to be president after two years in the senate unless you have that shit DOWN.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's an audience manipulation technique, same as those used by most any staged PR. In that respect it's fair enough to call it the same kind of thing.

If it is a standard technique, then what makes today's action so special, to liken it to today's Tiger Woods press conference? That is my main question.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's a move that's taught to upper management in most organizations to 'dress down' to their audience.

I'd quibble with you over the use of "most". Maybe it's taught to the majority of people who eventually reach upper management in, say, Fortune 500 companies. But I have to imagine that the sheer number of organizations and the bulk of them being small to mediums pretty much eliminates "most" being accurate for any management training at all.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Can you please at least keep your excuses straight?

I'll speak slower for your benefit.

PR stands for public relations. Executives uses both verbal and non-verbal techniques to portray themselves or their ideas in a better light. The two are very much related and I appreciate your interest in learning more about the techniques.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd quibble with you over the use of "most". Maybe it's taught to the majority of people who eventually reach upper management in, say, Fortune 500 companies. But I have to imagine that the sheer number of organizations and the bulk of them being small to mediums pretty much eliminates "most" being accurate for any management training at all.

Fair point. I've worked strictly in Fortune 500 companies or in the federal government for my entire career, so that's where I draw my experience for the most part.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

If it is a standard technique, then what makes today's action so special, to liken it to today's Tiger Woods press conference?

Both are carefully calculated moves meant to psychological influence the audience perception of the speaker and/or the speaker's message. The sleeves are more like a technique used by a larger presentation like Woods' but it could be reasonably argued that the existence of the Woods' press conference itself is simply a technique. The comparison holds up from that standpoint.

I'd part company on whether there was anything remarkable about Obama doing it today simply because pretty much every public appearance is the same thing, with or without the sleeves. And that would hold true for the majority of politicians.

[cartman]

I agree they are related, and also realize they are not the same thing. I have done quite a bit of public speaking, and am well aware of the verbal/non-verbal aspects. Especially when speaking to those for whom English is not their native language.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Slow news day?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Slow news day?

Either that, or we need to look at the town hall transcript closer to see if there was a home run that MBBF was trying to obscure with ridiculous shirt sleeve claims.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Slow news day?

I guess yesterday was a no news day since there was no posts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Either that, or we need to look at the town hall transcript closer to see if there was a home run that MBBF was trying to obscure with ridiculous shirt sleeve claims.

Really, an Obama home run in a speech? He still gets points for those?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Really, an Obama home run in a speech? He still gets points for those?

Only if he rolls up his shirt sleeves, evidently.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Only if he rolls up his shirt sleeves, evidently.

What sillier, evaluating sleeve usage or gushing over potential "home run" quips at town halls?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

What sillier, evaluating sleeve usage or gushing over potential "home run" quips at town halls?

You might have a point if there was anyone gushing over potential home runs. So far, there hasn't been any discussion of the actual content of the town hall.

[Arles]

Molson, you need to understand that it's not about what Obama does - it's about what intends to do or says he will do. After all, we have to temper our expectations on actual output given he only has clear majorities in the Senate and the House.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

Molson, you need to understand that it's not about what Obama does - it's about what intends to do or says he will do. After all, we have to temper our expectations on actual output given he only has clear majorities in the Senate and the House.

But isn't it good that just b/c a majority of the House and Senate (leaving the de facto 60-person majority discussion off to the side) belong to the President's political party that they are not "his" majorities?

Can't we agree that had the GOP members of Congress stuck to conservative principles and not let through the worst of Bush's vote-pandering policies (unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, unfunded Medicare expansion), we would be in a much better fiscal place than we are now?

Once we accept as axiomatic that any member of Congress should simply bow to the President when he belongs to the same party, haven't we pretty much just accepted that checks and balances are for suckers and losers?

Why isn't a good thing when the branches push against each other? You seem to be implying that we would have been better served to simply ask Obama to provide a health care plan to Congress which each D would have simply voted into law. Knowing your politics, I know that this is not what you would have wanted. So what's the deal?

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But isn't it good that just b/c a majority of the House and Senate (leaving the de facto 60-person majority discussion off to the side) belong to the President's political party that they are not "his" majorities?

Can't we agree that had the GOP members of Congress stuck to conservative principles and not let through the worst of Bush's vote-pandering policies (unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, unfunded Medicare expansion), we would be in a much better fiscal place than we are now?

Once we accept as axiomatic that any member of Congress should simply bow to the President when he belongs to the same party, haven't we pretty much just accepted that checks and balances are for suckers and losers?

Why isn't a good thing when the branches push against each other? You seem to be implying that we would have been better served to simply ask Obama to provide a health care plan to Congress which each D would have simply voted into law. Knowing your politics, I know that this is not what you would have wanted. So what's the deal?

Presidential candidates (and their supporters) love to promise that congress will do something, but then claim impossibility when it doesn't happen. On the campaign trail, presidential candidates (both parties) always talk about legislation - they talk as if congress will simply be a puppet to their whims. So I'm not sure how we're supposed to evaluate that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Molson, you need to understand that it's not about what Obama does - it's about what intends to do or says he will do. After all, we have to temper our expectations on actual output given he only has clear majorities in the Senate and the House.

And as much as some will portray that Congress doesn't always fall into lockstep with the president, that's exactly what was expected based on the campaign rhetoric.

[Flasch186]

well to quote evan bayh, when the co-sponsors of a bill then refuse to support it, Id say its a bit of obstructionism that no one anticipated. But I dont mean to distract you from your brainwashing.

[Greyroofoo]

I think we need to redo the poll at the top of the this thread to see how people's reactions have changed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

well to quote evan bayh, when the co-sponsors of a bill then refuse to support it, Id say its a bit of obstructionism that no one anticipated. But I dont mean to distract you from your brainwashing.

Actually, a lot of us anticipated that real life, politics, and his lack of experience would get in the way of Obama's grand plans. That's exactly the problem we had with him. The brainwashing, to use your term (that is obviously still effective).

[larrymcg421]

I guess we should've voted for someone that wasn't even going to try to do many of the things we wanted, and in many ways was going to do exactly the opposite because after one year Obama has failed to deliver on everything he promised. That makes alot of sense.

Even if I looked into a crystal ball and saw what Obama's first year would be like, then I still would've voted for him without a doubt, because I simply did not like what McCain said he was going to do, regardless of whether or not I thought he could accomplish all of it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I guess we should've voted for someone that wasn't even going to try to do many of the things we wanted, and in many ways was going to do exactly the opposite because after one year Obama has failed to deliver on everything he promised. That makes alot of sense.

If he delivers all he promised in 4 years I'll donate to his campaign and vote for him. But that's ain't happening.

If you're content to vote for a guy who tries hard, that's your business.

Under your logic, we should all vote for the guy who promises the most. Which I suppose is exactly what happened.

Edit: I don't think anyone other than the most hard-core Republicans could possibly be against Obama's promised "outcomes". They're all positive and beneficial. But wanting positive and beneficial things isn't enough. (Almost) everyone wants affordable health care for all Americans, a decrease in the national debt, independence from foreign oil, environmental sustainability, less corruption and influence from lobbyists and special interest groups, and yes, even "change in the way Washington does business", etc. It doesn't take a visionary to come out and say that these things are desirable. And yet Obama's the golden boy because, basically, he says he wants these things.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

If he delivers all he promised in 4 years I'll donate to his campaign and vote for him. But that's ain't happening.

If you're content to vote for a guy who tries hard, that's your business.

Under your logic, we should all vote for the guy who promises the most. Which I suppose is exactly what happened.

Edit: I don't think anyone other than the most hard-core Republicans could possibly be against Obama's promised "outcomes". They're all positive and beneficial. But wanting positive and beneficial things isn't enough.

This isn't hard.

I liked what Obama said he was going to do. I never expected him to accomplish 100% of it, and I certainly didn't expect that within one year. But yes, someone who is trying to do things that I like is preferable to someone who is trying to do things that I don't like.

I did not like what McCain said he was going to do and that won't change no matter how much Obama struggles with getting all of his plans passed.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Actually, a lot of us anticipated that real life, politics, and his lack of experience would get in the way of Obama's grand plans. That's exactly the problem we had with him. The brainwashing, to use your term (that is obviously still effective).

oh. Im sorry. You support voting against your own bill?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

oh. Im sorry. You support voting against your own bill?

If he doesn't want it to go through, sure.

Why are Democrats so shocked and surprised by politics? It's just funny. I mean, obviously Obama wasn't going to ride in on a white horse and have everyone follow him. This is what many of his opponents were arguing during that ridiculous campaign! And now that reality has set in, the supporters are saying the same thing, and pretending they knew this all along. Then what was all that bullshit during the campaign??

Many were wary of Obama because they feared politics and real life and his lack of experience would get in the way of his visions. That was the very argument against him!!! Now his supporters are using it as an excuse.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

If he doesn't want it to go through, sure.

Why are Democrats so shocked and surprised by politics? It's just funny. I mean, obviously Obama wasn't going to ride in on a white horse and have everyone follow him. This is what many of his opponents were arguing during that ridiculous campaign! And now that reality has set in, the supporters are saying the same thing, and pretending they knew this all along. Then what was all that bullshit during the campaign??

Many were wary of Obama because they feared politics and real life and his lack of experience would get in the way of his visions. That was the very argument against him!!! Now his supporters are using it as an excuse.

Has there ever been a candidate that was able to fulfill all of their campaign promises? Obama is horrible because he can't hit 100% of what he campaigned on one year in? What is the acceptable threshold of fulfillment and over what time period?

The disconnect I see here is that your line of thinking is "I can't believe that people are buying all of this stuff that Obama is saying. If they actually think he is going to be able to do all that, then they are idiots." You are making the assumption that anyone supporting Obama thought that way, when it simply isn't the case.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Has there ever been a candidate that was able to fulfill all of their campaign promises? Obama is horrible because he can't hit 100% of what he campaigned on one year in? What is the acceptable threshold of fulfillment and over what time period?

Obviously I'm doing some projections, and have conceded that I'll vote for him if he comes anywhere close to the stuff he was promising say, after the South Carolina primary:

Obama speech: 'Yes, we can change' - CNN.com

I mean, what the hell is even talking about? He's going to end partisianship once and for all? When does that start? This rhetoric is insane and people ate it up and that's why he's president. It made me want to puke during the campaign. That's what I resent. The duping of the American people. These speaches are solely why he's anything more than a state senator.

He has four years to show he's more than speeches, a pretty amazing opportunity, but he's not off to a great start. Is he so vastly superior to Hillary Clinton in terms of shaking up Washington or whatever the hell he was rambling about in South Carolina?

I'm just thinking there's not really going to be all that much change after four years. Certainly not enough to live up to those speeches.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

If he doesn't want it to go through, sure.

Why are Democrats so shocked and surprised by politics? It's just funny. I mean, obviously Obama wasn't going to ride in on a white horse and have everyone follow him. This is what many of his opponents were arguing during that ridiculous campaign! And now that reality has set in, the supporters are saying the same thing, and pretending they knew this all along. Then what was all that bullshit during the campaign??

Many were wary of Obama because they feared politics and real life and his lack of experience would get in the way of his visions. That was the very argument against him!!! Now his supporters are using it as an excuse.

You are creating this ridiculous strawman where we all apparently thought Obama was going to fix everything overnight and fulfill every single promise. Is that what you need to be able to form a coherent argument? None of us here thought that.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

If he doesn't want it to go through, sure.

Why are Democrats so shocked and surprised by politics? It's just funny. I mean, obviously Obama wasn't going to ride in on a white horse and have everyone follow him. This is what many of his opponents were arguing during that ridiculous campaign! And now that reality has set in, the supporters are saying the same thing, and pretending they knew this all along. Then what was all that bullshit during the campaign??

Many were wary of Obama because they feared politics and real life and his lack of experience would get in the way of his visions. That was the very argument against him!!! Now his supporters are using it as an excuse.

What!? Im sorry. There is no argument other than 'obstructionism' and an attempt to harm the political landscape and thereby you and me, to vote against your very own bill. It is almost the bottom of the ethical totem pole in my view.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Is he so vastly superior to Hillary Clinton in terms of shaking up Washington or whatever the hell he was rambling about in South Carolina?

Evidently he has some powerful folks on the Republican side of the aisle spooked, because they are doing their damnedest to make sure there is no trace of bipartisanship in the House or Senate.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You are creating this ridiculous strawman where we all apparently thought Obama was going to fix everything overnight and fulfill every single promise. Is that what you need to be able to form a coherent argument? None of us here thought that.

I don't know what everybody thought, I can only read about Obama's background, read these speeches, and wonder how the hell we got here.

Smarter people (like those at FOFC) had more tempered expectations, I can understand why anyone would vote for him instead of McCain - but Obama was clearly playing to the lowest common denominator, the masses thought he was going to change the world, and many of them have now become distracted with American Idol and aren't a part of the debate anymore.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Why are Democrats so shocked and surprised by politics?

Originally Posted by molson

but Obama was clearly playing to the lowest common denominator, the masses thought he was going to change the world, and many of them have now become distracted with American Idol and aren't a part of the debate anymore.

Wait, who was shocked and surprised by politics?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Wait, who was shocked and surprised by politics?

Fair point....

Maybe this was just the first election where I was smart/educated/mature enough to notice the degree of it.