Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Yeah, the point you're (accidentally?) making is that Clinton wasn't a good leader in the early part of his term either.
I see no revisionism.
Fern
Yeah, the point you're (accidentally?) making is that Clinton wasn't a good leader in the early part of his term either.
I see no revisionism.
Fern
Hard to reconcile what? I haven't made either of the statements you attributed to me. While I think Obama does share some blame for the failure of that bill, I reject the narrative, which you point out is coming heavily from certain sectors of the left, that Obama should have sheparded this bill firmly through Congress. These same democrats who are making this argument have historical amnesia. Not only have they forgotten what happened with Hilcare, but they seem unaware that Obama conferred with the Clintons early in this process with the specific intent to not repeat the mistakes they made. He took an opposite approach from the Clintons, got a bill within a hairs breath of passing, which would have passed but for a special election in January, and they are Monday morning quaterbacking this by saying he should have taken an approach which they have forgotten was the Clinton's failed approach. It's a circle jerk blame game going on within the dem camp right now that someone like Krauthammer is only too happy to exploit.
So far as the allegation that the system is broken, it isn't the "system" that is the problem right now, if by "system" we are referring to structural rules such as a fillibuster. The real problem is not the system but the people who are occupying it. A fillibuster is fine, in fact it's even a good idea, when it isn't being used to set a routine super-majority requirement for every piece of legislation like it is now.
When Clinton and Reagan were in office, the "system" was essentially the same as it is now. However, there were more moderates in both parties who would cross the aisle and work with an opposition President. That is not the case right now. The same argument is made in comparison to LBJ, but there again there were many moderate repubs that LBJ was able to work with.
So while the "system" isn't any more broken now than it was under Clinton or Reagan, the current political context is different by degrees. Putting all the blame on Obama for being a weak leader because you assume he is operating in the same context as past Presidents is a fallacy.
And then, of course, Krauthammer ignores further context - the fact that both Reagan and Clinton were unpopular and criticized for being ineffectual a year into their own presidencies. That's where the real apples to apples comparison is, not something they did later in their Presidencies under different circumstances. While there is a kernal of truth to the argument that blaming the "system" is not entirely accurate, he's cherry picked history and ignored context to put all the blame on Obama himself.
- wolf
Wasn't a good leader on healthcare? Probably. Obama's approach proved superior to his, by a longshot. Wasn't a good leader in general? I'd give him a mixed review for his earlier period in office. He was perceived very poorly, which was part due to his own mistakes and part due to a lagging economy. It's very easy to circle over any President like a vulture and ply your pet theories about what a terrible President they are when they have low approval because of a sagging economy. It happened with Reagan; it happened with Clinton; and it's happening again with Obama.
- wolf
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I don't think Krauthammer is comparing Obama to Clinton and Reagan per se. Rather he using their achievements to illustrate why the claim that the system is broken is wrong.
IMO, Reagan's and Clinton's problems, particularly Clinton's, in their first term are somewhat different the Obama's. Aside from the superficial similarity of first term problems (which most Presidents have) Reagan and Clinton came into Washington as outsiders. Neither had worked in Washington before, neither having been in the House or Senate. They had been Governors. It seems every time an outsider is elected President we go through a period where Congress tries to show them who is boss. In Clinton's case it was his own party to a great extent.
Unlike those two Obama came out of the Senate. Unlike LBJ he was no influental legislator, and I think that's his problem. But that's just another flavor of saying he lacked experience, which IMO he did.
Again, the fact that Reagan & Clinton were unsuccesful leaders early in their first term is irrelevent. The point is they got big things accomplished under this very same system. I suspect Krauthammer wanted to raise an example of both a Repub and Democrat for a purpose. To have only focused on Repub Presidents would have looked too partisan and been subject to complaints of implying that a Dem can't make the system work.
Krauthammer is not saying Obama never will be successful at leading on big issues, but rather he isn't now and it's NOT a systemic problem. It's that Obama hasn't figured out how to lead and get it done yet.
As I've opined elsewhere, he may do much better without a Dem majority in both Houses. It gives him cover for compromise, and right now Pelosi & Reid are, IMO, far stronger than him. Looks to me like Obama came to office ready to mediate the gulf between the two parties, but instead is stuck mediating the Gulf between Pelosi (House Dems) and Reid (Senate Dems).
Fern
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
IMO, Obama's approach got farther because the Dems hold much bigger majorities than they did under Clinton.
While I think Clinton's approach was was pretty poor, I doubt he would've gotten further by trying Obama's. Having slimmer majorites in Congress doesn't seem to be any help.
I think the bigger picture is that all this just serves to really demonstrates how very difficult it is to get enough concensus on Health care issues and reform. I think it can and will happen, but the lesson is that it needs to be incremental. The quicker that's accepted, the quicker it starts happening.
Fern
His central argument was not that the system isn't broken. That is only a step in the causal chain of his argument which leads to his conclusion: that Obama is a weak leader. In making that argument, he is comparing Obama unfavorably to both Reagan and Clinton. This historical comparison is a necessary component of his argument. He's saying, look, Obama can't be excused because of a supposedly broken system, because these other guys got things done under the same system. Hence, his analogy to these past Presidents must be a strong one, in terms of particular similarities in circumstances, for his argument to have merit. But it isn't a strong one because it ignores too much context. If you're going to make arguments based on historical comparisons, more content, and context, are required. Anyone can find a bi-partisan achievement in the record of a 2 term President, somewhere. Pulling de-contextualized facts out of the historical ether does not make for a sound comparative argument.
I agree that he included Clinton to give his piece a "bi-partisan" feel, though I note he used a "conservative" achievement of Clinton's - welfare reform - to make his point. He didn't mention LBJ, which is the most common comparison made when people are critiquing Obama - because that would mean that he at least tacitly admits that Medicare and Medicaid were bi-partisan "achievements." Clever, that Charlie.
I tend to agree with the balance of your comments, though I think you are somewhat moderating Krauthammer's points. If Krauthammer wanted to say what you just said, he would have done so. He could have pointed out that the examples he used as comparisons went through awkward periods early in their presidencies, but improved later on, and that this could happen with Obama. Instead, he was content to leave the reader with the impression that Obama is just a weak leader, and that's that.
- wolf
Last edited:
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
After watching and reading Cheney's speech to Cpac, I almost tossed up. What a disillusional man speaking to a disillusional crowd.
So he says " well, now we know", referring to Obama and leadership.
So on the way home, stopping to get gas, I realize we don't hear about $4.50 a gal gas anymore. We don't have an oil executive as our VP any longer. We don't hear of secret meetings behind closed doors between Cheney and oil companies.
We don't have all the BS we once were fed daily from the Bush-Cheney royal family.
(Except from this Cpac speech)
How soon we forget. Yeah... run Dick in 2012, elect him, and see how that works out for you. Bring back those Bush years, for those that need reminding.
So he says " well, now we know", referring to Obama and leadership.
So on the way home, stopping to get gas, I realize we don't hear about $4.50 a gal gas anymore. We don't have an oil executive as our VP any longer. We don't hear of secret meetings behind closed doors between Cheney and oil companies.
We don't have all the BS we once were fed daily from the Bush-Cheney royal family.
(Except from this Cpac speech)
How soon we forget. Yeah... run Dick in 2012, elect him, and see how that works out for you. Bring back those Bush years, for those that need reminding.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Are you making a claim that Obama is currently not a weak leader? Because otherwise his failures must mean that the system is broken, as it supposedly was for Carter.
The best thing that can happen to Obama is to lose both the House and the Senate, which would both force him to (or at least toward) the center and give him some cover against the bitter hatred from the far left. He should take a lesson from Reagan, go directly to the people and convince them of what he wants to do - specifics, not "hope, change and brains". But he cannot do that playing TelePrompter Pong. No one is going to accept his words as heart-felt if he simply goes from screen to screen. If he can convince the public to get behind one of his big changes, then he will have a mandate to take before Congress and get legislation to enact that proposal. When the American people lead, the leaders usually follow. (Current slow learners excepted, obviously.) Currently Obama seems to be playing by the Clinton play book, attack your opposition and then claim responsibility for whatever emerges. But Clinton had three big advantages - great personal charisma, a fairly centrist philosophy, and an opposition Congress, so that when he cooperated with the Pubbies he got credit for getting the best bill he could get. Having owned both chambers for a year, Obama doesn't get the last, and doesn't seem to have the two former, but he might be able to get by if the Republicans take Congress. Problem is the Republicans probably won't have the strength to pass much, and probably won't pass anything for which Obama wants to take credit.
Obama does have one big benefit: People WANT him to succeed as a president even if they want his entire agenda to fail. This gives him a majority in the country who are predisposed to listen to his ideas. He should take a big page from the Newt Gingrich play book; find out what the American people want, see where his ideals coincide, and develop programs to push based on that overlap. I'm sure the Republicans had wish list items that would have been hard sells to the American public, but the Contract With America was based on those things that most of them AND a majority of the American public wanted. Hell, some of the Contract With America probably didn't have majority support, but did have majority public support, so all the Pubbies promised to bring them to a floor vote.
Obama needs to succeed; we need him to succeed. But he can't succeed as President by playing TelePrompter Pong and hoping that Pelosi and Reid turn us into Sweden.
I'll agree that Obama's leadership has been somewhat lacking, but not for PJabber's or Krauthammer's reasons. It's because Obama fails to properly perceive the nature and intent of the opposition, thinks that they can be won over with reason and honest intentions. Quite the contrary. What they want is only to return to power, continue the policies that led to their demise in the first place. The more he tries for bipartisanship, the greater the compromise, the more he looks like them, and the more muddied the waters become. He keeps trying to reason with them, when they're incapable of it.
The whole healthcare issue is demonstative. He and Reid should have forced the senatorial Dems to go with the HOR version. Even now, it's the smart move. Win or lose, at least some decent legislation will be adopted or turned down, and the responsible parties will have to be, uhh, you know, responsible. If repubs kill it via filibuster, at least we'll all know what happened, and can vote accordingly. Dems can club repubs with it at the next election. Repubs have made it obvious that they have no intention of working for the good of the people, so just pound 'em with their own actions, set the battle lines with the intention of winning, not with the intention of compromising. It's the only thing repubs understand, let alone respect.
Don't defend- attack.
The whole healthcare issue is demonstative. He and Reid should have forced the senatorial Dems to go with the HOR version. Even now, it's the smart move. Win or lose, at least some decent legislation will be adopted or turned down, and the responsible parties will have to be, uhh, you know, responsible. If repubs kill it via filibuster, at least we'll all know what happened, and can vote accordingly. Dems can club repubs with it at the next election. Repubs have made it obvious that they have no intention of working for the good of the people, so just pound 'em with their own actions, set the battle lines with the intention of winning, not with the intention of compromising. It's the only thing repubs understand, let alone respect.
Don't defend- attack.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Exactly right. It's time to draw the lijne and let the chips fall where they may. That will be the ultimate test of Obama's leadership. Look out tightie righties, you may just get what you wished for!!
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,509
- 47,993
- 136
Excellent post, and that's a very eloquent way to put what I've been trying to articulate to a few of my friends for some time. I hope you can forgive me for plagiarizing that into an email...
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 73,176
- 34,505
- 136
Point one: Charles Krauthammer is a fascist moron.
Point two: Obama has failed to lead on health care reform, surrendering to the insurance/medical lobby and their Congressional lackeys before the battle was even engaged.
The column states that Obama failed to sell reform to the voters. This is rubbish. The voters are way out in front of Obama and Congress on the issue. Voters have been disgusted that their demands for health care reform, clearly expressed in the 2008 election results, were disregarded and the "reform" bills that were cobbled together in the Congress are giveaways to the insurance companies and medical industry.
Point two: Obama has failed to lead on health care reform, surrendering to the insurance/medical lobby and their Congressional lackeys before the battle was even engaged.
The column states that Obama failed to sell reform to the voters. This is rubbish. The voters are way out in front of Obama and Congress on the issue. Voters have been disgusted that their demands for health care reform, clearly expressed in the 2008 election results, were disregarded and the "reform" bills that were cobbled together in the Congress are giveaways to the insurance companies and medical industry.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
So,,,,prety much what you are saying is that Obama is a dumbass, and doesn't know how to lead.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,944
- 10,285
- 136
I don't think anyone pushing left or right is capable of governing this partisan fruit basket we call home. Sure, Obama's first year governing anything in his life was the Presidency in 2009, but that alone shouldn't have resulted in what we have now. There is something far more pervasive holding him back and it transcends him and his office.
You are watching the most powerful man in the world effectively be the most powerless. You must surrender your aim of one shoe fits all. You must agree to disagree and let the other side go their separate way before this powder keg explodes. I think you are too greedy for that. America's two parties want it all. In this they have fallen into hubris and sloth. They have failed the American people who will continue to vote for them and continue to get nothing in return.
This ride is on autopilot at this point, where do you think it leads?
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,509
- 47,993
- 136
I think you're pretty much calling yourself a dumbass if that's how you took it...
Obama is guilty of giving the Repubs the benefit of a doubt, and some (too much apparently) professional courtesy.
Nah- just that he expects too much from the entrenched wealth, greed and stupidity that sums up the opposition... Their leadership needs enemies to support their pitch, maintain cohesion in their base, and he's been declared to be just that. Conditioned response disallows rational thought in their followers, but needs to be maintained at a certain level to remain effective.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
When you say "I'll agree that Obama's leadership has been somewhat lacking, -snip-. It's because Obama fails to properly perceive the nature and intent of the opposition", you're right but for all the wrong reasons. And "properly perceive the nature and intent of the opposition" is key here.
When you say "The whole healthcare issue is demonstative. He and Reid should have forced the senatorial Dems to go with the HOR version", you're on to something, but haven't figured it out yet.
His opposition was not the Repubs, it was the (real) leaders in his own party. With super majorities in the House and Senate the Repubs should have totally been irrelevent and powerless. "He and Reid should have forced the Senatorial Dems..", heck he couldn't get, or make Reid do anything. And Reid clearly demonstrated he had no intent or desire to pass the House the bill as is (or was) and Obama couldn't persuade him to. Heck Obama himself showed no effort towards that end. He probably know it was futile from his own limited time in the Senate.
BTW: I don't mean to sound harsh or insulting, but my impression is that you haven't followed politics for very long. The Senate thinks of itself as a much higher body than that of those 2-year yocals in the House. Good freakin luck with any effort to get the Senate to fall inline behind the House. We'll see that when hell freezes over. You've got it backwards, and I'm not talking about which bill was better, but how Washington DC works and where the big ego's are.
Fern
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter