Enemies, not Opponents

[EagleKeeper]

What specifically is Obama doing to suggest he is "weak"?

Military terms is lead, follow or get out of the way.
Obama is not leading - sure as heck not leading us out of this mess.
He is following Congress which right now can not find it's ass with its thumb
and sure not getting out of the way.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

EK, those are platitudes, not specifics.

 

[Craig234]

Military terms is lead, follow or get out of the way.
Obama is not leading - sure as heck not leading us out of this mess.
He is following Congress which right now can not find it's ass with its thumb
and sure not getting out of the way.

Good news, EK. News story today. Obama sent special forces into Congress and at the point of a gun they were ordered to repeal the sequester.

Sadly, four Republicans - all tea party patriots - made the ultimate sscrifice for their principles. Special elections will beheld to elect new people.

But the vote was 425-0 to pass a repeal of sequestration. Obama is now leading. Happy?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Good - he actually did something.

 

[Craig234]

Good - he actually did something.

You'll love his next goal - he promises to make the trains run on time.

There's a huge irony here.

The tea party calls Obama a fascist with no idea what it means.

But if he actually WERE a fascist, they love him for it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's a nice little cynical system the GOP has set up here.

1. Oppose, undermine and block absolutely everything Obama does, even if it's something they'd agree with if done by a Republican president.
2. If Obama tries to get around the obstructions, whine that he's a "fascist".
3. If Obama doesn't try to get around them, sneer that he's "weak".

Real "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of stuff.

 

[Fern]

So, it's the TEA Party that has a problem with him.

I clicked on your link and when I read this I fuly understood why they would:

In just over two years in Congress, Republican Scott Rigell of Virginia has piqued conservatives by voting to raise the debt ceiling, disavowing an anti-tax pledge, and partnering with Democrats on gun control legislation. He was one of only two Republicans last year to oppose holding Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt.

But the proverbial straw broke the tea party’s back on Wednesday, when Rigell joined President Obama at a major shipbuilder near his southeastern Virginia district that would be hurt by sweeping military cuts if Congress doesn’t reach a budget deal. President Obama, who called for reducing the deficit in part by raising taxes, thanked Rigell and Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott, whose district includes Newport News Shipbuilding, as “two outstanding congressmen who care about this facility, care about Virginia and care about this country.”

Knowing what the TEA Party stands for (no tax increases, reduced spending etc.) the question is why wouldn't they oppose this guy?

I see nothing abnormal or outrageous here.

Find me a Dem who opposes abortion, reduced spending and no tax increases and let's see what the progressive wing of the Dem party says about him/her.

Edit: Material error correct. I meant "opposed abortion", not supported. Nothing unusual with the latter.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

So, it's the TEA Party that has a problem with him.

I clicked on your link and when I read this I fuly understood why they would:



Knowing what the TEA Party stands for (no tax increases, reduced spending etc.) the question is why wouldn't they oppose this guy?

I see nothing abnormal or outrageous here.

Find me a Dem who supports abortion, reduced spending and no tax increases and let's see what the progressive wing of the Dem party says about him/her.

Fern

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

Now go count the percentage of Blue Dogs that had primary challenges mounted against them and compare it to moderate Republicans.

What's also funny is that raising the debt ceiling and not sparking a worldwide financial crisis is considered too liberal for the tea party. That alone shows you just how utterly nuts that movement is.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a nice little cynical system the GOP has set up here.

1. Oppose, undermine and block absolutely everything Obama does, even if it's something they'd agree with if done by a Republican president.
2. If Obama tries to get around the obstructions, whine that he's a "fascist".
3. If Obama doesn't try to get around them, sneer that he's "weak".

Real "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of stuff.

It is a bit odd that they seem to have no problem vacillating between 'Obama the ruthless dictator' and 'Obama the ineffective leader'. It's not very flattering to say that someone you view as so incompetent is apparently still able to outsmart you enough to crush you under his bootheel.

Although really, everything you needed to know is covered by #1. If the goal is to oppose, undermine, and block everything Obama does (and it is), then #2 and #3 are just different tactics for accomplishing #1.

 

[Fern]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition
-snip-

I don't really feel like looking up all the Blue Dogs and researching their policy positions etc. But I have often heard that Dems who aren't pro-choice are snubbed at the convention and not allowed to speak.

So, still not seeing anything unusual etc.

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's a nice little cynical system the GOP has set up here.

1. Oppose, undermine and block absolutely everything Obama does, even if it's something they'd agree with if done by a Republican president.
2. If Obama tries to get around the obstructions, whine that he's a "fascist".
3. If Obama doesn't try to get around them, sneer that he's "weak".

Real "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of stuff.

This country is built from the rule of law, not circumventing because it is inconvenient.

Presidents should not be above that concept

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This country is built from the rule of law, not circumventing because it is inconvenient.

Presidents should not be above that concept

Okay, so then him not circumventing the rule of law makes him "weak"?

You brought up the term, but haven't provided any explanation of how it applies here.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't really feel like looking up all the Blue Dogs and researching their policy positions etc. But I have often heard that Dems who aren't pro-choice are snubbed at the convention and not allowed to speak.

So, still not seeing anything unusual etc.

Fern

I'm pretty sure that not being offered a speaking spot at a convention and being drummed out of office and/or the party is slightly different.

Still not seeing anything unusual?

 

[Greenman]

I find it interesting that you assume that because I find the radicalism of the current GOP deplorable, that I must be a Democrat.

EK, if the "tea party" is a visible point of attack, it's because all they have done since their inception is attack everyone and everything who doesn't agree with them -- even members of their own group who don't march in lockstep with their "the other guys are the enemy" mindset.

I never made that assumption, and I never speculated on your political affiliation. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Okay, so then him not circumventing the rule of law makes him "weak"?

You brought up the term, but haven't provided any explanation of how it applies here.

The amount of leadership have seen from him is negligible. That to me is s sign of a weak leader. He came out swinging with grand ideas and whiffed.

Not going to rehash what happened over past four years on ;items that he had full control over.

My POV is that he had been an ineffective leader and had been granted a pass by the country as a whole because he was able to contrast his promises against Bush's record.

Now he has his own record to stand on. And it is very very tippy. In 4 years, he seems dtill is unable to accept responsibility for his actions and track record. Half his TV time (via sound bites on MSM) are seeming to be bashing the Republicans. He seems to not realize, he won the election; stop trying to blame and start the healing.
The nation is not going to recover without, if on his watch.

His legacy will be inheriting the recession and letting in march on under his watch.

The Great Depression did not last 10 years.
FDR realized something needed to get done and he got it done.

 

[Craig234]

So, it's the TEA Party that has a problem with him.

I clicked on your link and when I read this I fuly understood why they would:



Knowing what the TEA Party stands for (no tax increases, reduced spending etc.) the question is why wouldn't they oppose this guy?

I see nothing abnormal or outrageous here.

Find me a Dem who opposes abortion, reduced spending and no tax increases and let's see what the progressive wing of the Dem party says about him/her.

Edit: Material error correct. I meant "opposed abortion", not supported. Nothing unusual with the latter.

Fern

That's the nuttiness of the tea party. What are their 'core principles', anyway?

Let's look at your list.

"voting to raise the debt ceiling"

OH MY GOSH, he voted as Congress of both parties always has to pay our bills rather than try to throw a bomb and attack the US economy, a huge blow for no reason.

Definitely that votes makes him not a good Republican!

"disavowing an anti-tax pledge"

Wow, so he was too far to the right to the point he ever signed an absurd and anti-American 'pledge' with a private citizen not to do what's right for the country, but to unconditionally not support any tax increases - and in the face of huge deficits where taxes on some are at historic lows, where some other Republicans have taken positions such as saying 'the pledge only bound to the Congress during which it was signed', he said he would act as an elected official and use the powers to do what's right for the people.

Totally unacceptable as a Republican (just like that bad Republican Ronald Reagan who raised taxes many times in the face of a need to do so in the public interest).

and partnering with Democrats on gun control legislation.

Yes, and what gun control legislation was that? Maybe something like eliminating loopholes for backgorund checks?

It sure wasn't to 'get rid of all guns from law-abiding citizens' and that nonsense.

Since when did being a Republican require some absolute adherence to radical NRA positions, such as opposing universal backgorund checks 92% of Americans support?

Maybe we should ask Reagan again, after he signed a 1986 gun control bill that banned some guns, supported the Brady gun control bill, supported a 1994 assault gun ban.

And your last item:

He was one of only two Republicans last year to oppose holding Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt.

So in the outrageous abuse of power by House Republicans to hold a US Attorney General in contempt for the first time in US history, over completely baseless and trumped political charges - the equivalent of their abusing the impeachment power to impeach Bill Clinton or block a Presidential nomination to try to hype up anti-Obama attacks over Bengazi - the man did not go along with that terrible misuse of power, did not get in line with the herd and do the wrong thing. He can't be a Republican then!

Reagan worked closely with Democratic leader Tip O'Neill on issues. They worked together and compromised to do things like the Social Security reform act. Reagan had some good things to say about O'Neill. So clearly, Reagan, like this guy was a TRAITOR to the party unfit to be a Republican for being seen agreeing with a Democrat on anything.

What are the 'core principles' of these Tea Party or Republicans? Who cares about his broad support for whatever freedoms, economic policies, foreign policy, whatever.

Hm, Demoratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is pro-life personally. He voted 'yes' with Republicans on a bill to more strongly prevent minors from crossing state lines to get an abortion, which had only five 'yes' votes from Democratic Senators and 'yes' votes from all but three Republicans, and failed by one vote 49-49. When Republicans put up a bill to make 'harm to a fetus' more of a criminal act to support their pro-life position, only Democrats voted 'yes' and Reid was one of them, while all Repubicans except Lincoln Specter and Olympia Snowe voted yes. GET HIM OUT OF THE PARTY!

Sorry, your list of 'reasons' why he 'can't be a good Republican' is like a criminal indictment condeming the current Republican part for its radicalism.

When we talk about more rational Republicans who aren't radical nuts being drummed out of the party, you just made that case.

 

[fskimospy]

The amount of leadership have seen from him is negligible. That to me is s sign of a weak leader. He came out swinging with grand ideas and whiffed.

Not going to rehash what happened over past four years on ;items that he had full control over.

My POV is that he had been an ineffective leader and had been granted a pass by the country as a whole because he was able to contrast his promises against Bush's record.

Now he has his own record to stand on. And it is very very tippy. In 4 years, he seems dtill is unable to accept responsibility for his actions and track record. Half his TV time (via sound bites on MSM) are seeming to be bashing the Republicans. He seems to not realize, he won the election; stop trying to blame and start the healing.
The nation is not going to recover without, if on his watch.

His legacy will be inheriting the recession and letting in march on under his watch.

The Great Depression did not last 10 years.
FDR realized something needed to get done and he got it done.

Actually the Great Depression lasted exactly 10 years in the US by the most common estimate.

Also, FDR had not just supermajorities, for much of his time the democrats controlled as many as 70 senate seats (and that's before filibuster abuse) and 300+ house seats. Comparing the situations of Obama and FDR is simply not credible.


Obama has already accomplished more than any Democratic president since LBJ, I imagine history will be very kind to him if he continues on this path. If you disagree though, what exactly do you think he should do differently? No vague statements like 'lead'. Exactly what?

 

[Craig234]

The amount of leadership have seen from him is negligible. That to me is s sign of a weak leader. He came out swinging with grand ideas and whiffed.

Not going to rehash what happened over past four years on ;items that he had full control over.

Like, say, his weak leadership fighting for a healthcare bill, a fight lost by every Democrat who tried from Harry Truman to your beloved 'strong leader' Bill Clinton?

Now, progressives would agree, Obama was 'weak' on the issue, in terms of caving in on way too many compromises, throwing out single-payer and the public option. But still.

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' on guiding the US through policies such as Libya, between protecting our image in the Middle East, supporting rebels without losing any Americans?

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' in winning passage of a historic $787 billion stimulus that was a large part of helping the economy?

Once again, progressives would agree he only got a fraction of what was needed passed. But still. You sure seem to be agreeing with progressives on everything.

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' on bailing out the auto industry in the face of public opposition and attacks of 'government takeover', while Romney wrote an editorial that had a headline of 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' saying the US auto industry would be gone if they got government loans, which turned out to quickly lead to GM being #1 in the world again?

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' in supporting the mission to keep his campaign promise and invade Pakistan secretly to kill Osama bin Laden when intelligence was giving only a fair chance he was there, in a mission that strongly threatened his re-election if anything went wrong, getting compared to Carter's disastrous raid in Iran?

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' in repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell", a policy put in place because your beloved 'strong president' Clinton was too weak to beat Republicans on it?

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' in the government not defending DOMA, another 'strong president' Clinton forced compromise, and coming out for gay marriage?

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' in the US reputation rising around the world, with an average increase of 26 percent in countries surveyed by Pew?

Or maybe his 'weak leadership' in taking away a golden goose which at taxpayer expense was making banks - one of the strongest lobbying groups - a fortune by allowing them to be middlemen in selling government-guaranteed student loans, where they kept the big profits in the markups while taking no loan risks, and putting the savings into helping more people?

I could go on, for many issues, but have I hit on his weak leadership yet?

Progressives would agree he's been 'weak' on too much - but relatively speaking? Ya, right.

My POV is that he had been an ineffective leader and had been granted a pass by the country as a whole because he was able to contrast his promises against Bush's record.

Now he has his own record to stand on. And it is very very tippy. In 4 years, he seems dtill is unable to accept responsibility for his actions and track record. Half his TV time (via sound bites on MSM) are seeming to be bashing the Republicans. He seems to not realize, he won the election; stop trying to blame and start the healing.
The nation is not going to recover without, if on his watch.

His legacy will be inheriting the recession and letting in march on under his watch.

The Great Depression did not last 10 years.
FDR realized something needed to get done and he got it done.

Oh, I think the record speaks loudly about who doesn't take responsibility for their record - such as in blocking hundreds of bills passed by Democrats by abusing the filibuster.

Such as in continuing the same policies that led to the economic crash in 2008 and fighting any effort at economic recovery, because a bad economy helped their chances in 2012.

 

[Craig234]

Actually the Great Depression lasted exactly 10 years in the US by the most common estimate.

Also, FDR had not just supermajorities, for much of his time the democrats controlled as many as 70 senate seats (and that's before filibuster abuse) and 300+ house seats. Comparing the situations of Obama and FDR is simply not credible.


Obama has already accomplished more than any Democratic president since LBJ, I imagine history will be very kind to him if he continues on this path. If you disagree though, what exactly do you think he should do differently? No vague statements like 'lead'. Exactly what?

I didn't respond to the FDR part of his post, but FDR faced some radical ideologues who 'vetoed' the strongest parts of FDR's recovery program, stopping him cold.

It's just that the Republicans in Congress didn't do it, they didn't have the votes, and the filibuster even if they could have wasn't abused like that then - it was the former nominee for the Republican presidential ticket, who just happened to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his conservative colleagues who struck down law after law.

Of course, years into this debacle for his program, FDR was a strong leader who tried to fix it by expanding the Supreme Court so he could nominate more Justices and win.

But that effort was soundly defeated by his own Democratic party and the American people were strongly opposed so it didn't work.

So to EK, that makes FDR 'weak'.

If FDR couldn't solve his obstacle by expanding the court, if Obama can't solve his obstacle by overriding the Congressonal Republican obstructionism, it's entirely their fault.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Actually the Great Depression lasted exactly 10 years in the US by the most common estimate.

Also, FDR had not just supermajorities, for much of his time the democrats controlled as many as 70 senate seats (and that's before filibuster abuse) and 300+ house seats. Comparing the situations of Obama and FDR is simply not credible.


Obama has already accomplished more than any Democratic president since LBJ, I imagine history will be very kind to him if he continues on this path. If you disagree though, what exactly do you think he should do differently? No vague statements like 'lead'. Exactly what?

given that you have Carter and clinton as the other Dem presidents since LBJ, is that saying a lot.

What has Obama accomplished for this country?

getting out of Iraq - already set in motion.
getting out of Afgahnistan - not yet

world Peace - I can not hold that against him.

Locally:
Transparency - still looking
Responsibility/repercussions related to/for the banking fiasco - nothing.
Unemployment is still worse
Fuel prices still higher than when he took office (75-100%) depending on where - physolcologial
Federal budget not under control - increase costs to country
Obamacare is causing confusion and increased cost throughout the system
Stimulus did not recover the economy - created more debt and pulled forward easy projects; no long term benefits or tax revenue increases.


I am trying to find the positive things that he has accomplished for this country that the system would not have done without his leadership!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I never made that assumption, and I never speculated on your political affiliation. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Here's what you wrote in response to me:

I find it interesting that you see this as a problem of the right. Generally speaking, it's best to clean your own house before complaining about the dirty neighbors.

That's a pretty clear implication that I am a leftist. If not, do explain what else "your own house" means in juxtaposition to "the right".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The amount of leadership have seen from him is negligible. That to me is s sign of a weak leader.

This is circular: his "amount of leadership is negligible" is the same as saying "weak leader". Both are bald claims with nothing to back them up.

He came out swinging with grand ideas and whiffed.

Name three.

Not going to rehash what happened over past four years on ;items that he had full control over.

Such as? Specifics, please.

My POV is that he had been an ineffective leader and had been granted a pass by the country as a whole because he was able to contrast his promises against Bush's record.

Still no specifics.

Now he has his own record to stand on.

But.. you just said he hasn't done anything.

And it is very very tippy. In 4 years, he seems dtill is unable to accept responsibility for his actions and track record.

Source? Quotes? Anything?

Half his TV time (via sound bites on MSM) are seeming to be bashing the Republicans.

Even if I grant this as rhetorical embellishment, it's flatly not true. Go ahead and try to back it up -- you'll fail miserably.

He seems to not realize, he won the election; stop trying to blame and start the healing.

What does that mean "start the healing"?

Heal what? How?

The Great Depression did not last 10 years.
FDR realized something needed to get done and he got it done.

The war got him out of the depression.

Obama's actions may or may not have stopped us from having another one.

All I hear in your anti-Obama posts is vague demagoguery of the sort I hear daily from talk radio hosts. No facts, no arguments, no substance.

It's clear you just despise the guy because you despise the guy. You have nothing to support your claims.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

given that you have Carter and clinton as the other Dem presidents since LBJ, is that saying a lot.

I'll take Clinton over any of the Republican presidents of the last 20 or so years, and I don't even like him.

What has Obama accomplished for this country?

Craig listed some. If you need more, look here.

getting out of Iraq - already set in motion.

You seem to forget the guy he ran against gave every indication that he wanted to keep us in Iraq indefinitely.

getting out of Afgahnistan - not yet

This, IMO, is his biggest failure. He pushed for an expansion of the Afghan war, and it's been a disaster. We'll see if he at least gets us out.

Transparency - still looking

He could be doing better here.

Responsibility/repercussions related to/for the banking fiasco - nothing.

Lolwut? How is he responsible for something that happened before he took office?

Unemployment is still worse

Unemployment is bad because of a mess he inherited. Whether it would be better or worse absent his actions is debatable. A strong argument can also be made that the GOP's refusal to allow him to implement Keynesian policies has blocked him from taking the actions that would improve this.

Fuel prices still higher than when he took office (75-100%) depending on where - physolcologial

That's an unfair comparison.

This is only because the economy was in a tailspin when he took office. Fuel prices were about the same in mid-2008 as they are now.

Federal budget not under control - increase costs to country

The president doesn't pass the federal budget. Congress does.

Obamacare is causing confusion and increased cost throughout the system

Proof?

Stimulus did not recover the economy - created more debt and pulled forward easy projects; no long term benefits or tax revenue increases.

Source? Evidence?

The stimulus may not have worked as well as projected, but it did stop the slide, and things could well be worse now without it.

I am trying to find the positive things that he has accomplished for this country that the system would not have done without his leadership!

If you are really trying, I'm not seeing it, sorry.

 

[Craig234]

What has Obama accomplished for this country?

I am trying to find the positive things that he has accomplished for this country that the system would not have done without his leadership!

So you're not reading my post to you answering that? Let's make it simple for you:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Or maybe just 50:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...tures/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

 

[Lithium381]

The tea party are really another political party, but they run as (R) because if they didn't, they'd be third party and there are far too many people who just look at the ballot and pick either (D) or (R) without knowing a thing about the candidate or their history and stances; leaving those candidates SoL. There are things I agree with the tea party about, some I think are a little far fetched.