Is Obama really a bad president?

[werepossum]

He's obviously talking about Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails and then conflating Obama with America. Obviously the two fates are not inextricably connected; Carter certainly failed and failed hard, but America recovered just fine.

Both parties hope that Presidents of the opposite party fail; that's their path to power. Both parties have America's best interests (as they see them) at heart. Believing that this is something new, or that someone who wishes that a particular President fails is wishing that America fails with him, is evidence of abysmal stupidity or complete and utter dishonesty for political purposes.

Admittedly I'm dramaticising rather than actually quoting. Mitch McConnell said that the number one priority of the GOP in Congress was to ensure that Obama is a one term President. It was a little disgusting to hear when the country needs legislaters to have fixing the economy, jobs, healthcare, defense, anything else as the number one priority. And it's obvious that if the GOP works with Obama to fix the country, then they're working against their goal of keeping him from being re-elected. I personally found it to be one of the most despicable things an American politician has said in my lifetime.

LOL Shows the limits of my prognostication.

I'll concede you do have a point there. Both sides do it, but it was stupid to say it.

 

[thraashman]

LOL Shows the limits of my prognostication.

I'll concede you do have a point there. Both sides do it, but it was stupid to say it.

Your guess wasn't bad. But even if many of the GOP do kowtow to Limbaugh, he is not a leader of the party. McConnell is an actual leader within the Senate. The fact that he's an elected leader and can actually shape the votes directly is what makes it a much worse statement to me. We know the parties don't work well together and that it seems to have gotten much worse in the last couple decades. But admitting to the public that making the other guy look bad is the most important thing just plumetted my faith in our system.

 

[QuantumPion]

LMAO do you really believe this over the top diatribe??? We'll see if the American electorate agrees with you in Nov...I think your party is going to get DESTROYED.

/lawnchair
/popcorn

Too lazy to even click on one link to whitehouse.gov eh? Well you are not in much position to argue now, are you?

 

[werepossum]

Obama may go down as one of the most damaging presidents in the history of America. Look at the precedent he is setting with his executive orders, regulatory enforcement, and Tzars. Just look at his latest one, passed last Friday. It basically gives Obama the authority to confiscate any farm, food, or food products, supersede any existing contracts or property rights, and redistribute them for the "common good". All in the name of providing for the common defense of the country. I.e. - it is in the interest of the defense of the country that we have enough food. Therefore, we have the authority to nationalize all farms. I am not making this shit up.

If he actually does any of that stuff, then yes, he'll be THE most damaging postwar President at the very least. But Presidents give themselves these powers all the time and virtually never misuse them. This seems to me to be an update of the original Defense Resources order, which seems to me to be a pretty useful thing if needed. Personally I'm also hoping Obama uses this to skirt some of the rules about making bids for defense and crucial strategic items open to all nationalities. Worst comes to worst, if he tries to nationalize anything without a true country-threatening emergency, he'll be impeached as long as the Republicans hold the House, and probably removed by the Democrat Senate as well.

 

[werepossum]

Your guess wasn't bad. But even if many of the GOP do kowtow to Limbaugh, he is not a leader of the party. McConnell is an actual leader within the Senate. The fact that he's an elected leader and can actually shape the votes directly is what makes it a much worse statement to me. We know the parties don't work well together and that it seems to have gotten much worse in the last couple decades. But admitting to the public that making the other guy look bad is the most important thing just plumetted my faith in our system.

All true.

 

[Ausm]

Obama may go down as one of the most damaging presidents in the history of America. Look at the precedent he is setting with his executive orders, regulatory enforcement, and Tzars. Just look at his latest one, passed last Friday. It basically gives Obama the authority to confiscate any farm, food, or food products, supersede any existing contracts or property rights, and redistribute them for the "common good". All in the name of providing for the common defense of the country. I.e. - it is in the interest of the defense of the country that we have enough food. Therefore, we have the authority to nationalize all farms. I am not making this shit up.

Too lazy to even click on one link to whitehouse.gov eh? Well you are not in much position to argue now, are you?

How do you know whether or not I clicked on the link? Why would it matter by reading your posts, I think we would not agree on ANYTHING.

 

[Screech]

President of the last 4 years -- not amazing, not terrible. mediocre, sure.

Congress of the last few years -- holy epic clusterf*cking terribly bad.

edit: typo

 

[Throckmorton]

Obama may go down as one of the most damaging presidents in the history of America. Look at the precedent he is setting with his executive orders, regulatory enforcement, and Tzars. Just look at his latest one, passed last Friday. It basically gives Obama the authority to confiscate any farm, food, or food products, supersede any existing contracts or property rights, and redistribute them for the "common good". All in the name of providing for the common defense of the country. I.e. - it is in the interest of the defense of the country that we have enough food. Therefore, we have the authority to nationalize all farms. I am not making this shit up.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

 

[nonlnear]

Your guess wasn't bad. But even if many of the GOP do kowtow to Limbaugh, he is not a leader of the party. McConnell is an actual leader within the Senate. The fact that he's an elected leader and can actually shape the votes directly is what makes it a much worse statement to me. We know the parties don't work well together and that it seems to have gotten much worse in the last couple decades. But admitting to the public that making the other guy look bad is the most important thing just plumetted my faith in our system.

Faith in the system is misplaced anyways, so you're probably better for it. Legislators are generally irrelevant to the bulk of law, as rulemaking is where most law effectively comes from. Also the majority of bills are written by those same unelected rulemakers, so even when legislators appear to have an impact their actual influence on the brass tacks of law is minimal. It's basically a yes/no to whatever is put in front of them, but they rarely create the details of any laws.

The cake is made of bureaucrats; elected representatives are just icing - if that. The notion that legislators write and debate laws hasn't really been truly descriptive of American government since at least the 1930s.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't know much about him, but most of what I've heard has been good. And yet a lot of people seem to hate him. What am I missing here? He looks like a godsend compared to the carnival of freaks running for president.

He promised many things, did not deliver on almost all the important ones...even the ones no one could have stopped him from delivering on but himself.

So other than the promises he broke because he wanted to break promises, we have him grovelling to the leaders of other nations. Yeah, treat then with respect and as equals, but no grovelling, please. Then, add to it that he thinks it is just swell and dandy to force people to engage in interstate commerce or fine them if they do not...Well, you get a crappy President when you add it all up.

And just think, he did all this when he still wanted you to like him enough to vote for him again. Imagine what he will do when he does not have to even pretend you matter at all to him!

 

[QuantumPion]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

Feh. I'll fall back on his plenty of other precedents then - making recess appointments when there is no recess, operating the government without a budget for his entire administration, sending armed forces to international conflicts which have no national interests in without congressional approval, etc.

 

[blankslate]

President of the law 4 years -- not amazing, not terrible. mediocre, sure.

Congress of the last few years -- holy epic clusterf*cking terribly bad.

Pretty much the most concise and accurate assessment of the past 3 years or so.

 

[fskimospy]

Feh. I'll fall back on his plenty of other precedents then - making recess appointments when there is no recess, operating the government without a budget for his entire administration, sending armed forces to international conflicts which have no national interests in without congressional approval, etc.

I love how the realization that you were taken in yet again by some ridiculous internet rumor does not faze you in the slightest. Keep plowing ahead!

 

[ky54]

Pretty much the most concise and accurate assessment of the past 3 years or so.

But Congress was great when Nancy was ramming through stuff?

 

[cybrsage]

But Congress was great when Nancy was ramming through stuff?

Nancy and ramming in the same sentence aught to be a bannable offense.

:reallymadface:

 

[Juddog]

As people above have mentioned, really no matter who was president the past four years would have accomplished very little due to:
A) A congress that just won't cooperate. Probably the most partisan congress I can ever recall.
B) Stepping into an overly expensive war and terrible economic period

If a Republican was in office, on Fox news they would be saying how the president isn't responsible for the price of gas (like they did in 2008).
http://youtu.be/UzEnKdBAb_o

So no matter how you spin it, anybody stepping into the president's position in 2008 would have faltered. It's unfortunate that the "Obamacare" proposals all received the poison pill treatment - altering the legislation so that it would be horrible if it passed, which it did, precisely so that the GOP could point the finger.

Pretty much we had an epic fail on both sides of congress for the past 4 years, and during that time Obama was limited with what he could do given what he had to work with. Given the current political climate, the best anybody could have done was maybe a "B", and Obama did a "C". Had Congress not been so FUBAR'd, then Obama could have done better.

At least he's better than George Dubya Bush though.

 

[cybrsage]

How is he better than Bush? From what I can see, he has all of Bush's faults, then added more of his own to them.

 

[jstern01]

Obama may go down as one of the most damaging presidents in the history of America. Look at the precedent he is setting with his executive orders, regulatory enforcement, and Tzars. Just look at his latest one, passed last Friday. It basically gives Obama the authority to confiscate any farm, food, or food products, supersede any existing contracts or property rights, and redistribute them for the "common good". All in the name of providing for the common defense of the country. I.e. - it is in the interest of the defense of the country that we have enough food. Therefore, we have the authority to nationalize all farms. I am not making this shit up.

Read before you leap

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/...redness-executive-order-power-grab-or-update/

Nothing new here, move along.

 

[dank69]

How is he better than Bush? From what I can see, he has all of Bush's faults, then added more of his own to them.

What will the total cost of the wars Bush started be to the nation?

What will the total cost of the wars Obama started be to the nation?

 

[blankslate]

But Congress was great when Nancy was ramming through stuff?

Actually it was in the House of Representatives (one part part of Congress) through which Nancy Pelosi was "ramming through stuff"...

The Senate (the other part of Congress) was where Republicans where able to sway enough consera-Dems to not vote for quite a lot of the bills that were moved up from the House. This in turn allowed the Senate Republicans to use the filibuster for a record number of times.

There is a point to the distinction. The point is that when Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. Quite a lot had been done under her direction. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on one's politics) the filibuster meant that quite a lot of what she did could be stalled in the Senate.

Maybe people hate Congress in general because it appears that they have not been very productive.... wonder why?

 

[cybrsage]

What will the total cost of the wars Bush started be to the nation?

What will the total cost of the wars Obama started be to the nation?

I notice you pretend STARTED makes a difference. I will call your STARTED bluff and call with a CONTINUED TO FIGHT.

So I ask again, how is he better than Bush? From what I can see, he has all of Bush's faults, then added more of his own to them.

 

[dank69]

I notice you pretend STARTED makes a difference. I will call your STARTED bluff and call with a CONTINUED TO FIGHT.

So I ask again, how is he better than Bush? From what I can see, he has all of Bush's faults, then added more of his own to them.

Because ending a war is just as easy as starting one, correct?

 

[werepossum]

What will the total cost of the wars Bush started be to the nation?

What will the total cost of the wars Obama started be to the nation?

I'd rate Obama and Bush about equal, but this is a very important point. Had we taken the Libya approach to Afghanistan - make a deal with the Northern Alliance that we'll furnish air power, SpecOps, supply & training so that you can take back your country and then we're out - virtually everyone would agree we'd be much better off and probably much more popular inside Afghanistan. Iraq's a bit difference as it's been a smashing success, but it's quite uncertain that the value to us (meaning Americans and to a lesser extent our coalition partners) will ever be worth what we invested in blood and treasure.

If Libya goes to hell in a hand basket like Egypt, at least we did it on the cheap. And they won't be able to point to our meddling as the source of their troubles. We helped them gain their freedom; if they threw it away, that's on them. Of the two approaches, I much prefer the "kill people and break things" approach over the "you broke it, you own it" approach.

EDIT: And actually, ending a war IS as easy as starting one when the other party has no ability to take the fight to us, as long as you're willing to take the heat for losing. But in any case, Obama didn't inherent any wars; he inherited two occupations and nation building. Both wars were won well before Obama took office, and in the case of Afghanistan, I doubt anyone could do materially better. Personally I'm hoping he just declares victory a la Nixon and gets us out ahead of schedule.

 

[boomerang]

If he wins, we get four years of totally unconstrained Obama with his slew of societal misfits running the show while he plays a whole lot more golf. As an added bonus, we'll get at least one, most likely two and perhaps three more SCOTUS appointments out of him. Nuff said.

 

[dwell]