Commentary on what Obama needs to do

[EagleKeeper]

What 'change' are you talking about? He magically snaps his fingers and the economy is over the problem in a week while the deficit is eliminated and we're paying off the debt? That Afghanistan is at peace fast?

You know, he really should get the Congressman to return all their special interest donations and swear to only listen to the citizens from now on, and have the middle east cut oil prices in half. He said change.

As part of the Nobel Peace Prize, they said English is now the official language of the world.
While they're at it, Iran asked Israel to come run their country.

Would you expect that Obama should also return all of his special interest donations?

Remember that he refused to accept the Federal spending limitations - all his money was raised through "contributions"

He has shown to be no better than Congress - but afterall, he did come from Congress - must have been a quick learner

 

[StageLeft]

All Obama can do is the right thing, but he won't succeed, not with the 41 vote superminority.

If he can't do anything with 59 vs 41 he is weak and impotent. Change can certainly be executed with his substantial majority. Just maybe not by him, maybe he is too weak or maybe he doesn't care about the right things.

For example, you don't think he could get some of those republicans (if only because their constituents urge it) to come out about corporate lobbying? I'm sure he could present a case indicating how lobbying is removing citizens' wishes. There are endless examples of it. But he can't have that because they pay for him, too.

Regardless he doesn't have it and worse Americans are a bunch of pussies compared to 1930's and are not forcing the issue on the streets

In their defense, this is no 1930s, at least not at the moment. Most people still have jobs, plenty of food, etc. Things simply are not that bad for most people. I imagine that if things got bad you would see people out on the streets. It's not like they'd have a job to go to.

In the 30 years since Reagan's policies went into full effect we have only had 3 recessions.

In the 30 years prior to Reagan we had SIX recessions!!! (That doesn't even include the 81-82 recession)

What we are going through now is certainly painful, but prior to that we have been living in the longest prolonged period of growth in out country's history. The only decline we have seen is the decline in liberalism, not a bad thing in the eyes of most people.

And now we are going through the worst in many decades. Some would argue its foundation lies upon what has been built in more recent memory and they'd be correct.

 

[Robor]

He should resign along with Biden, Pelosi and Reid, for the good of the country. Then a new election can be held and we can see if we can do any better this time.

 

[StageLeft]

Ask yourself this: All these months later, do you yet know what the health care plan means for your family’s bottom line, your taxes, your insurance? It’s this nebulousness, magnified by endless Senate versus House squabbling, that has allowed reform to be caricatured by its foes as an impenetrable Rube Goldberg monstrosity, a parody of deficit-ridden big government. Since most voters are understandably confused about what the bills contain, the opponents have been able to attribute any evil they want to Obamacare, from death panels to the death of Medicare, without fear of contradiction.

Haha, true. I said this, too, it's been changing so much nobody even has a clue what it's about anymore.

 

[brencat]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/24-2

Sometimes it's always good to study the ways of your adversaries. So I read this article today and was impressed...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7

they diagnosed Obama's and Congress's ineptness even better than many mainstream commentators did.

But his solution is for Obama...to turn even further left? WTF?!

So I say...please do! <Licks chops, rubs hands together in anticipation of Nov wipeout>

Even if he wanted to, no one will trust him at this point. He's like the teacher on the peanuts...all we here now is "wah wah wah" he's on TV so damn much. On top of that, the country wants CENTRIST policies, despite the continued denial of the far left (and to a lesser extent the far righties too).

 

[Dari]

Sometimes it's always good to study the ways of your adversaries. So I read this article today and was impressed...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7

they diagnosed Obama's and Congress's ineptness even better than many mainstream commentators did.

But his solution is for Obama...to turn even further left? WTF?!

So I say...please do! <Licks chops, rubs hands together in anticipation of Nov wipeout>

Even if he wanted to, no one will trust him at this point. He's like the teacher on the peanuts...all we here now is "wah wah wah" he's on TV so damn much. On top of that, the country wants CENTRIST policies, despite the continued denial of the far left (and to a lesser extent the far righties too).

Excellent article indeed. I agree with everything they say except for the solution. The president, who I supported in 2008, has failed miserably.

 

[Craig234]

Sometimes it's always good to study the ways of your adversaries. So I read this article today and was impressed...

That's a bit Sun Tzu melodramtic, but you righties are a bit off, and it's harmless for a change.

But yes, it is a decent article. I'd considered posting it here, but there were more useful ones I was posting.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7

they diagnosed Obama's and Congress's ineptness even better than many mainstream commentators did.

But his solution is for Obama...to turn even further left? WTF?!

So I say...please do! <Licks chops, rubs hands together in anticipation of Nov wipeout>

Even if he wanted to, no one will trust him at this point. He's like the teacher on the peanuts...all we here now is "wah wah wah" he's on TV so damn much. On top of that, the country wants CENTRIST policies, despite the continued denial of the far left (and to a lesser extent the far righties too).

He discussed the options pretty well. Obama has been governing to the right. It's not working - see my Truman quote, give voters a Republican and a Democrat acting like one, they'll pick the Republican.

I'm repeating here - he needs to lead with Democratic policies, not compromise his way to everyone not finding a reason to vote for him.

What do you mean "even further left" to this non-liberal President? You say you liked the article, which explains he's not been liberal, but you say you don't agree.

You say no one will trust him. I disagree. I don't trust him in ways, but I'll trust him more if he changes. Many will. Not everyone has a short memory of the Republicans.

What are these 'centrist' policies you claim will get him re-elected? Are they like my 'snap his fingers and the economy's working with a balaced budget' list?

 

[StageLeft]

Whether he should go more centrist or more left I don't know right now but what he's been doing is a whole lot of nothing and he has to pick a road.

I like that commondreams article. Whether it's right or not it resonates very nicely.

 

[Jaskalas]

Retiring Dem Congressman: Obama said 'big difference' between '10 and '94 is 'me'...

Delusions of grandeur. Not what I would recommend to him.

 

[brencat]

What are these 'centrist' policies you claim will get him re-elected? Are they like my 'snap his fingers and the economy's working with a balaced budget' list?

For one thing, shoot for incremental change. Not transformational change. Our country doesn't want it.

As far as what I'd suggest for centrist policy, please see this thread (post# 27):

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2043428&page=2

 

[blackangst1]

Before the election, I said we need an FDR, not a Clinton, on policy; I said we needed an FDR on leadership, not a Carter, and if Obama wasn't FDR he ran the risk of being Carter II.

A president who might have the right position on some issues, but it doesn't matter as much if they aren't assed and he's not re-elected returning the presidency to the radical right as Carter did Reagan.

The return of the presidency to Republicans (and the start of our serious 30 year decline) one election after the nation couldn't say the word Republican without nausea after Watergate, as they turned sour on the party after Bush II, is a lesson of the short memory and effectiveness of campaign big buchs - now far looser than every before - for Obama.

What we got with Obama was too much Clinton corporate compromise on policy, and so far, more Carter than FDR on leading the policies to take effect.

But he's still better than either in those ways on some issues.

Here's an article that has the views of many progressives about what he should do.

In short, it says to recognize that the concentration of power and the problems with our democracy not representing the averqage American are the most important issue and need him to side with the people.

Sadly, I'm not sure how much he can really do now - the Supreme Court has done something it's not easy to undo from turning our nation into one with McGovernment far more than it already is.

Is there anything short of a constitutional amendment to protect the citizens from the monsters the system they run has created?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/24-2

Thankfully Obama is no where near a progressive, so its a moot point what progressives think he needs to do. And he's closer to Bush on most issues than he is Carter.

And this article from David Green is pretty spot on: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7

 

[zephyrprime]

Resign for the good of the nation. This new populism he's selling isn't selling. Now that we know he's just another politician, I doubt that anyone will believe him anymore.

The problem with wishful thinking like this is that you think that the replacement politician will be any better. He won't be. It doesn't matter if he is a republican or a democrat, the replacement politician will still be a politician and politicians in the modern world are just whores to special interests.

America needs to reform the political SYSTEM rather than just try to swap out individual politicians.

 

[blackangst1]

You don't understad this much. Presidents improve their support by leading the people - for better or worse.

Bush started out as an insecure president who peple said couldn 't dare do govern in any way but pandering to the center, avoiding going to the right and alienating them after a very close election he really lost, and his ratings were low and declining as people said what is he about and predicted a bad loss for re-election -

Bush's first seven months rating: 56%
Obama's: 52%

Revisionist much?

 

[PJABBER]

Can you say "hubris?"

January 25, 2010

Berry: Obama said "big difference" between '10 and '94 is "me"

Rep. Marion Berry's parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates &#8212; warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.

But the jaw-dropper is Berry's claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago &#8212; by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.

The retiring Berry, who doesn't say when the remarks were made, now scoffs at Obama's 50-or-below approval rating:

Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs &#8220;off into that swamp&#8221; of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

&#8220;I&#8217;ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don&#8217;t seem to give it any credibility at all,&#8221; Berry said. &#8220;They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, &#8216;Well, the big difference here and in &#8217;94 was you&#8217;ve got me.&#8217; We&#8217;re going to see how much difference that makes now.&#8221; [snip]
​

&#8220;I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn&#8217;t want to see it again because we know how it comes out,&#8221; said Arkansas&#8217; 1st District congressman, who worked in the Clinton administration before being elected to the House in 1996... "I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and &#8217;94. No one that was here in &#8217;94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn&#8217;t a good feeling.&#8221;

 

[StageLeft]

Bush's first seven months rating: 56%
Obama's: 52%

Revisionist much?

Is that an average over time? Does it include 911?

 

[Patranus]

Is that an average over time? Does it include 911?

After 9/11 it was something like 90%.

 

[Darwin333]

Ask yourself this: All these months later, do you yet know what the health care plan means for your family’s bottom line, your taxes, your insurance? It’s this nebulousness, magnified by endless Senate versus House squabbling, that has allowed reform to be caricatured by its foes as an impenetrable Rube Goldberg monstrosity, a parody of deficit-ridden big government. Since most voters are understandably confused about what the bills contain, the opponents have been able to attribute any evil they want to Obamacare, from death panels to the death of Medicare, without fear of contradiction.

Exactly what I have been saying.

Versus what Axelrod just said "People will never know whats in the healthcare bill until we pass it and the president signs it"

So... instead of going through the process in daylight with some expert testimony while the bill is being drawn up, again in the public eye so real experts can comment on it and break it down to the people we will continue to have the Republicans or the industry telling us whats in it.

Great plan guys, its been working swell so far.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Exactly what I have been saying.

Versus what Axelrod just said "People will never know whats in the healthcare bill until we pass it and the president signs it"

So... instead of going through the process in daylight with some expert testimony while the bill is being drawn up, again in the public eye so real experts can comment on it and break it down to the people we will continue to have the Republicans or the industry telling us whats in it.

Great plan guys, its been working swell so far.

If the Progressives are so clever why didn't they insist that the means to make the bill were the best possible? When I asked that question I was told that there have been studies done over the years that back government options as being superior.

Well that's great and all, but then again there had been reports back years before that Saddam had WMDs. The "work" was already done, and we saw the result of Republican hubris over that. So the Dems get in, make health care their Iraq, and do the same damn thing. "Knowing" something and implementing it aren't the same, and at least as bad is saying you know something that you don't. No one on DC seems to have a clue as to how things work or what is needed except bitching about how evil insurance companies are.

Seriously, if a business was going to go out and stake it's reputation on a major project, you can bet that there would be people brought in who had an idea about the task, there would be feasibility studies, cost analysis, etc.

So we have the government rewriting how health care operates without doing much the same thing, and that's good?

A confederacy of dunces.

 

[Darwin333]

You are going to be unhappy person when he win the 2012 Presidential election........

For every nutcase like you there are those who understand that there is noway in hell the Republican should ever be in office....the lesser of two evil...sure but still is bette than any Republican...

Like Ted Kennedy's old seat? Or was the state simply to red to elect another Dem?

 

[Red Dawn]

If the Progressives are so clever why didn't they insist that the means to make the bill were the best possible? When I asked that question I was told that there have been studies done over the years that back government options as being superior.

Well that's great and all, but then again there had been reports back years before that Saddam had WMDs. The "work" was already done, and we saw the result of Republican hubris over that. So the Dems get in, make health care their Iraq, and do the same damn thing. "Knowing" something and implementing it aren't the same, and at least as bad is saying you know something that you don't. No one on DC seems to have a clue as to how things work or what is needed except bitching about how evil insurance companies are.

Seriously, if a business was going to go out and stake it's reputation on a major project, you can bet that there would be people brought in who had an idea about the task, there would be feasibility studies, cost analysis, etc.

So we have the government rewriting how health care operates without doing much the same thing, and that's good?

A confederacy of dunces.

Well luckily the People had their say about Health Care unlike Iraq.

 

[cubeless]

and barry needs to start wearing a tie and looking presidential, or else really dressing down (maybe bib overalls?) at these outings he does... people won't mind if he's 'overdressed' or in a costume, but he just looks cheesy in a jacket and button down shirt with no tie...

time to start looking presidential, too...

 

[blackangst1]

Is that an average over time? Does it include 911?

Do you think the first seven months would include the ninth month? Not being a smartass...maybe you missed the word seven

 

[StageLeft]

Do you think the first seven months would include the ninth month? Not being a smartass...maybe you missed the word seven

Well January to august is kind of 7th so I thought maybe another month. But would you have said he had 55 or whatever at the end of 7 months not over them?

 

[PJABBER]

And this article from David Green is pretty spot on: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7

Finally got around to reading that article. Fascinating and, other than the proposed solutions at the end, a pretty good description of what Barry has wrought.

No matter on what side of the partisan spectrum anyone may reside, having an inept President is a danger both foreign and domestic.

Glad to see the country is rejecting the liberal agenda, especially as corrupt an example as it is, but sorry to see so many having to go through so much personal hardship in the interim. It could be worse, though, more of the proposals could actually have squeaked through and worse than a clueless President is a bankrupt nation.

 

[MotF Bane]

and barry needs to start wearing a tie and looking presidential, or else really dressing down (maybe bib overalls?) at these outings he does... people won't mind if he's 'overdressed' or in a costume, but he just looks cheesy in a jacket and button down shirt with no tie...

time to start looking presidential, too...

If he actually did a good job, I don't care if he wants to wear a potato sack.