The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Flasch186]

Stewart was hilarious last night about it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

The White House has apologized, and Obama was apparently "furious".

It was just a really retarded thing to do, though not really a huge deal. But it sounds like a few buildings were evacuated.

I do think there might be a couple other reason New Yorkers might have reacted differently than someone in Kansas City, other than not being the "biggest, toughest, baddest guys on the block". I mean, how dare New Yorkers be jumpy about low-flying 747s! Does their jumpiness negatively impact you in any way?

It just annoys me in the way that anything that's not really news getting on the news annoys me and I know I've made that argument in many other threads about nonsense. This fits into that category.

I realize all this did was "interrupt" the 24-Hour Swine Flu-arama, so, no it's not that big of a deal. But that's my point- it's not that big of a deal so why is one being made. This shouldn't even be a story.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Obviously the entire war was sold to the public on flawed intelligence (that Bill Clinton also apparently fell victim to)

There's a difference between having access to the current intelligence first-hand, knowing it was shaky and basing your argument on it anyway, and supporting the President's argument (especially in 2002) when he says his conclusions are based on good evidence.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What, not a Bears game? I'd love to see Cutler go down in flames!

Because we don't want you to freeze solid. You are from California, after all.

Originally Posted by molson

Fortunately, despite their rebound, it's not exactly 2001 again.

I'd argue that it's worse, in Pakistan. The Taliban have considerably more power in the border regions of Pakistan than they did in 2001, and are starting to encroach even more into the country. The government of Pakistan already has enough problems, and has nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Every poll I've seen on this for Iraq states that this is not, in fact, the case.

{citation needed}

Still waiting for the citation, MBBF, if only because I'm really interested in your claim, if it's true (for Iraq - obviously Afghanistan has considerable support).

Originally Posted by molson

It was just a really retarded thing to do, though not really a huge deal. But it sounds like a few buildings were evacuated.

One of the best quotes I saw on the NY Times "blog" was: "What, have these people never heard of photoshop?"

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The whole plane thing, while not "important" politically, has got to be one of the dumbest moves. I really hope someone got fired for that lack of foresight. Telling New Yorkers to "get over themselves" when some of them freak out seeing a plane flying towards a skyscraper is a curious way to respond to the situation.



I wasn't even in NY for 9/11 and if I saw that I would be running down the stairs too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Telling New Yorkers to "get over themselves" when some of them freak out seeing a plane flying towards a skyscraper is a curious way to respond to the situation.

They were selfishly not considering the internet surfers who would be burdened by seeing headlines about this incident.

I wonder, is it just an anti-New York sentiment?

[sterlingice]

No, seriously? Someone should be fired for this? Really? And I'm the one overreacting?

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I think it demonstrates sufficiently poor judgment that someone should be fired for it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

If this were done by someone I was managing, it would be an easy call for me to fire them. Doing something this stupid would not fill me with confidence for future judgment calls.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think it demonstrates sufficiently poor judgment that someone should be fired for it.

For allowing an airplane to fly over a city?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

For allowing an airplane to fly over a city?

"Allowing an airplane to fly over a city" isn't quite exactly what happened.

[Fighter of Foo]

Then count me as confused.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The cheap point is claiming what the "$3 trillion" could have done, when in no practical universe could anyone "spend $3 trillion on alternative energy" (whatever that means). Why didn't Clinton do that? Why didn't Gore make that a part of his campaign, or Kerry? Why isn't Obama doing it?

The government isn't like a text sim where you can shift that $3 trillion to something else.

Flere made the point that it's just an abstract hypothetical point to think of what the $3 trillion might have done, and I think that's fair. But let's not pretend that money actually could have gone anywhere.

That money went right back to the U.S., like I said, to American companies. We didn't go to an international walmart and "piss the money away" on French planes or something. No different then a stimulus package (from a financial perspective, obviously the collateral costs were a lot higher). The $3 trillion didn't vanish.

I don't think $3T has to all go toward R&D. As for spending it, I think it can be done. Massive tax breaks for those who buy electric (making the electric car on par with the gas or cheaper). Subsidies for gas stations to add power outlets for electric cars or natural gas pumps. Subsidies for parking garages and lots to add plugs for electric cars.

Shifting from gas to other options is a massive undertaking. But if $3T can get natural gas pumps into most gas stations along with putting a ton of electric cars on the road, you are probably able to take a huge chunk out of our oil consumption.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Then count me as confused.

This plane was far lower than planes are allowed to travel (it was at window-level with some skycrapers). I'm not sure what the rules are about flying over lower manhattan are generally, but obviously this was unusual enough to be jarring to people there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think $3T has to all go toward R&D. As for spending it, I think it can be done. Massive tax breaks for those who buy electric (making the electric car on par with the gas or cheaper). Subsidies for gas stations to add power outlets for electric cars or natural gas pumps. Subsidies for parking garages and lots to add plugs for electric cars.

Shifting from gas to other options is a massive undertaking. But if $3T can get natural gas pumps into most gas stations along with putting a ton of electric cars on the road, you are probably able to take a huge chunk out of our oil consumption.

Then we just need a way to generate that much electricity (coal?)

We can make an oil-independent car today, that's not a problem. It's making 300 million of them (or really, to make them affordable for 300 million people), and to create the new energy infrasturcture to the support that, in a clean way that's substantially better than oil.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

This plane was far lower than planes are allowed to travel (it was at window-level with some skycrapers). I'm not sure what the rules are about flying over lower manhattan are generally, but obviously this was unusual enough to be jarring to people there.

The political part of this was the note telling the city about it also said not to tell anyone else and refer them back to the FAA. There would have been much less of an issue if the residents had been warned. Or someone had looked at that note and said "this is stupid".

But we're dealing with some big-headed egotistical mid-level bureaucrat who thought this was a great idea and wasn't going to listen to naysayers. I've run into that a lot with marketing folks . With any luck he'll be on the street soon.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Then we just need a way to generate that much electricity (coal?)

We can make an oil-independent car today, that's not a problem. It's making 300 million of them (or really, to make them affordable for 300 million people), and to create the new energy infrasturcture to the support that, in a clean way that's substantially better than oil.

Yeah, I'd like to see nuclear, wind, and solar make a push in the energy area.

It's a ton of money to make this stuff happen but I do look at it as part of our defense budget in a way. Not having to deal with these countries is a huge plus in my book. It would reduce terrorism, wars, and stabilize our economy much more (no more OPEC deciding what's going on).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No, seriously? Someone should be fired for this? Really? And I'm the one overreacting?

I think we can all agree that this was a colossaly stupid decision. Now while the one act may not be worthy of firing the guy, do you really want someone that stupid making decisions? Is it really a bad thing to remove the guy who did this and put in someone who has basic common sense?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

GOP, New Yorkers, whatever outrage. I saw Jon Stewart have a segment about it last night. I know this is probably going to incur some wrath but it should be said.

This happens in any other city in American and people think "hey, the air show is in town". In New York, supposedly home of the biggest, toughest, baddest guys on the block, everyone goes all "duck and cover" then starts filling the air with outrage.

A single person with PTSD is completely understandable and it's a difficult thing to live with, I'd imagine. An entire city claiming it needs to get over themselves.

SI

This was an insanely dumb post by someone who I don't think has ever made one before.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think we can all agree that this was a colossaly stupid decision. Now while the one act may not be worthy of firing the guy, do you really want someone that stupid making decisions? Is it really a bad thing to remove the guy who did this and put in someone who has basic common sense?

Colossally stupid? Again with the hyperbole.

Yeah, clearly the guy didn't think about it too hard. It was a stupid move. But, again, if you schedule plane flyover in downtown, say, Dallas or Chicago or Miami or LA- no one thinks anything of it. Particularly since if you see photos of the plane, it looks like Air Force One. But in New York, it's panic time?

gstelmack is probably right- probably a stupid marketing person to begin with. But we're all looking at this with sharpened 20/20 hindsight, and, as I'm arguing, mostly overreacting. If we fired everyone who made a dumb decision at work, a lot of us would be fired many times a year, some many times a week.

Clearly, I'm in the minority thinking here but a lot of this is "oh, it was a bad decison" and then a bunch of piling on with ways just to try and make it sound worse and bigger than it was.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Logan

This was an insanely dumb post by someone who I don't think has ever made one before.

Huh? I've made an awful lot of posts so I'm guessing I'm missing something here.

SI

[gstelmack]

New York is clearly a special case thanks to 9/11, that's the whole point here that you are overlooking.

[flere-imsaho]

It was an ill-thought, stupid decision with unfortunate ramifications. People get fired for much, much less.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Colossally stupid? Again with the hyperbole.

Yeah, clearly the guy didn't think about it too hard. It was a stupid move. But, again, if you schedule plane flyover in downtown, say, Dallas or Chicago or Miami or LA- no one thinks anything of it. Particularly since if you see photos of the plane, it looks like Air Force One. But in New York, it's panic time?

gstelmack is probably right- probably a stupid marketing person to begin with. But we're all looking at this with sharpened 20/20 hindsight, and, as I'm arguing, mostly overreacting. If we fired everyone who made a dumb decision at work, a lot of us would be fired many times a year, some many times a week.

Clearly, I'm in the minority thinking here but a lot of this is "oh, it was a bad decison" and then a bunch of piling on with ways just to try and make it sound worse and bigger than it was.

SI

To be honest, if I saw a low flying plane hovering over the Sears Tower, I'd get a little worried too. I guess I saw it as something that potentially could have caused panic. Something that might have seen buildings evacuated and people hurt.

I'm not saying the event is a big deal. What I'm saying is that the person who did it is a moron plain and simple. If they didn't foresee an issue with flying a 747 at low levels over the heart of New York, they are too stupid to hold any position of responsibility.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

To be honest, if I saw a low flying plane hovering over the Sears Tower, I'd get a little worried too.

If I saw this, I'd figure I was in a science fiction film.

[Galaxy]

On top of the stupid decision, why are the exactly wasting taxpayer's money and property on a empty-planed (no Obama) jet to get a photo of the 747 with the Statue of Liberty? It's not exactly cheap.

Have they heard of photoshop?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It was an ill-thought, stupid decision with unfortunate ramifications. People get fired for much, much less.

Again, not disagreeing a lot here.

-Ill-thought and stupid decision, yes.
-People get fired for much less. Yup, especially in this economic climate.

But, again, front page news and calling for some one's head on a pike seems like gross overreactions.

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

No, I'd say the gross overreactions are the people who keep using the word "felony" around this. Him being fired, I would say, is just a reaction. Are people not allowed to be held accountable for anything anymore? You said earlier that if people were fired for every dumb choice made at work yadda yadda yadda, but there are certainly decisions that I make every day that if I screwed up with this magnitude I would easily be fired.

[Fighter of Foo]

Let me say this out loud so I understand:

Collectively, we want to censure, fire and/or charge with a felony a guy who allowed a plane to fly low over NYC. A guy who relied on advice from the federal government and who's actions caused no actual harm to anyone.

At the same time, we are most definitely not going to do anything to anyone who actually maimed, tortured or killed people, relying on advice from the federal government. They were just doing their job and acting on behalf of our country.

Do I have that about right?

[molson]

I don't think anyone said he should be charged with a crime, I think just one guy said it was "felony stupidity". And one person saying something a little over-the-top doesn't somehow mitigate the stupidity.

I would say anytime you do something in your job that requires the white house to apologize, hundreds to evacuate buidlings, and a few to have panic attacks, you shouldn't feel all that great about your job security. If you're otherwise an all-star, maybe you can stick around, but if you're so-so, why not bring in somebody less stupid?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Huh? I've made an awful lot of posts so I'm guessing I'm missing something here.

SI

Fire the guy, promote the guy, shorten his lunch, I don't give a shit.

But your first post where you claim that these people aren't tough, were unnecessarily scared, and were running for cover for no reason at all is completely insensitive and uncalled for.

Seriously, who the hell are you, and what have you been through that would allow you to say how others should react in that situation?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Fire the guy, promote the guy, shorten his lunch, I don't give a shit.

But your first post where you claim that these people aren't tough, were unnecessarily scared, and were running for cover for no reason at all is completely insensitive and uncalled for.

Seriously, who the hell are you, and what have you been through that would allow you to say how others should react in that situation?

Don't forget, sterlingice was burdened by having to read about it!!!

(I think he just hates NY).

[RainMaker]

Here is one thing that has gone unmentioned. Why the hell does Air Force One have a public relations department? It's a fucking plane.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is one thing that has gone unmentioned. Why the hell does Air Force One have a public relations department? It's a fucking plane.

To chaperone groups of Russian reporters. Obviously.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

On top of the stupid decision, why are the exactly wasting taxpayer's money and property on a empty-planed (no Obama) jet to get a photo of the 747 with the Statue of Liberty? It's not exactly cheap.

$328,835.

And an FAA official commented on “the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes.”

Metro - Gov’t knew flyby would frighten folk

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So did anyone watch the April PR appearance last night? Didn't see a word about it here.

[lordscarlet]

Nope.

[finketr]

tivo'd it.. haven't watched it...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by finketr

tivo'd it.. haven't watched it...

Seriously? People TIVO these things?

Here's the transcript for those that didn't TIVO it and need some light bathroom reading.........

Obama 100 Days Press Conference: FULL TRANSCRIPT

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Seriously? People TIVO these things?

So you can skip over the event and watch the ads

[flere-imsaho]

Heard the high points on NPR this morning - nothing struck me as ridiculously crazy. It'll be interesting to see how much Obama's repeated claim that he's not interested in running car companies or banks blunts the right's repeated attacks on this point.

[flere-imsaho]

Let's see how I'm doing so far:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

ECONOMY

Hopes:

• In 2009, an Obama "reconstruction" plan passes Congress that is designed to rebuild the U.S. for the 21st century. It includes:
  • Substantial investment in R&D efforts for "21st century" industries, such as technology, biotechnology, pharma, green technologies, etc....
  • Infrastructure upgrades (roads, rail, ATC, internet backbone)

I dunno, maybe this has happened?

Predictions:

• Wall Street never really figures out how much bad debt is out there, but by late 2010 there's enough faith that the "Big 3" (Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America) have cleared the bulk of the liabilities that the country starts to lift out of its 2-3 year malaise in the financial markets.

I'd say we're well on our way here....

• Chrysler fails and its parts are bought up by competitors (foreign & domestic). Ford ends up needing that line of credit, but turns out OK. GM is kept on life support by the government through 2010 and restructuring starts to pay off in 2011.

Partial credit for Chrysler?

• A short-term stimulus package of tax breaks and generalized pork is passed in early 2009.
• A long-term "reconstruction" package is finally passed in mid/late-2009 and demonstrates the first serious test of Obama's influence over Congress. Relations are soured between the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress over the latter's lack of willingness to pass legislation over the objections of vocal minorities amongst the GOP in Congress. This drives the liberal blogosphere absolutely ballistic. The "reconstruction" package contains some forward-looking initiatives, but is also at least half pork.

BAM!

SUPREME COURT

Hopes: Stevens (age: 88, reason: age), Ginsburg (75, health), Scalia (72, age), Kennedy (72, age), Breyer (70, age), and Souter (69, age/desire to retire) all retire

1 of 6 so far

Predictions: Early retirements for Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter.

1 of 3 so far

FOREIGN POLICY

Hopes:

• Majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010 in advance of current plan due to unexpected improvement in security and political stability.

Cautiously Optimistic

• Resurgent Afghanistani government and invigorated Pakistani administration, with U.S. and NATO backing, rout Taliban in border regions. Afghanistan secure enough by early 2012 to start withdrawing U.S. troops.

Yeah, this ain't gonna happen.

POLITICS

Hopes: Obama and Biden (Biden especially) work deftly with Democratic leaders in Congress to develop cohesive democratic voting majorities that deliver lots of progressive legislation. A thoroughly demoralized GOP loses even more seats in Congress in 2010, as the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The filibuster-proof majority thingy happened quicker than I expected (assuming Franken gets in). The rest? Not so much.

I could probably go on, but those are probably my major thoughts. Oh, and we all get ponies (hope), er, a 0.001% tax rebate (prediction).

No pony (yet), though I did get a tax break, but that may have been related to having a child. Call it a wash....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

New NY Times article concerning military tribunals of the Gitmo prisoners. During the campaign, Obama blasted McCain for his stance that military tribunals were the only way to go. Now, the administration is quickly figuring out McCain was right all along. Glad to see Obama make the correct decision here, even if he is breaking yet another campaign promise.

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts - NYTimes.com

[Butter]

Imagine that, a president who can admit when he's wrong! Refreshing, eh?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Imagine that, a president who can admit when he's wrong! Refreshing, eh?

Well, if previous unnamed presidents did that, it would be considered flip-flopping. But I certainly understand that in the world of rainbows and unicorns, this is a sign of a great leader rather than an ill-informed politician and staff who were campaigning on a stance that made no sense at all.

I'm glad they came around. We'll just leave it at that.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Well, if previous unnamed presidents did that, it would be considered flip-flopping. But I certainly understand that in the world of rainbows and unicorns, this is a sign of a great leader rather than an ill-informed politician and staff who were campaigning on a stance that made no sense at all.

I'm glad they came around. We'll just leave it at that.

The sad thing is, the ones who would most likely accuse that unnamed president of flip flopping would be his own base.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

The sad thing is, the ones who would most likely accuse that unnamed president of flip flopping would be his own base.

Absolutely. There are a lot of fiscal conservatives (which should not be confused with Republicans at this point) wondering if they'll even have a choice to vote for in the next election given that the previous president increased the deficit and the current one made that deficit look like a small blip on the radar.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Logan

To chaperone groups of Russian reporters. Obviously.

Nice movie reference.

Just wanted to point that out. Please continue.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Well, if previous unnamed presidents did that, it would be considered flip-flopping. But I certainly understand that in the world of rainbows and unicorns, this is a sign of a great leader rather than an ill-informed politician and staff who were campaigning on a stance that made no sense at all.

I'm glad they came around. We'll just leave it at that.

I didn't think you would find it refreshing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I didn't think you would find it refreshing.

Refreshing (and a "change") would have been Mr. Obama stating in one of his monthly PR appearances that he and his staff had noted the substantial issues with putting the prisoners on trial in the U.S civilian courts as Mr. McCain had mentioned during the campaign. Obviously they'd also note that they had determined that it was best to keep these trials in military courts. They don't have to admit they were wrong. Just mention the change of course.

Instead, they try to do it quietly behind the scenes and leak it to a reporter to avoid it blowing up all over the place later. That been done previously in many administrations so it's nothing new, but it's certainly not "change" or anything refreshing.

[JPhillips]

Today Obama walked from the family quarters to the Oval Office. Sure, other administrations have done the same thing, but Obama promised change. Is he ever going to skip or grapevine to the Oval Office or is it just going to be propulsion as normal?

btw- Just for reference, Stalin and Hitler were also well known walkers to work. I'm not trying to make any comparisons, but I just found the similarity interesting.