• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the Obama Administration doomed to fail?

D

Dari

Lifer
On the face of it you have a bunch of pragmatists. But, in truth, all I see are a bunch of Senators and eggheads with massive egos that are absolutely conscious of being part of a historic Administration. What I don't see is coherency or an outline as to where they want America to be in 10 to 20 years. No strategy means muddling through the next four years (from crisis to crisis). This is a disaster waiting to happen. An Administration needs to be proactive, not reactive. Despite the Bush Administration's many flaws, at least they knew where they wanted America to be and those in their Administration had written many policy papers and had been members of numerous think tanks. Obama's has nothing.

I really hope Obama can manage all those egos AND find the time to lead, rather than be lead.
 
No, I don't think it's doomed to fail.

Will be difficult, that's for sure.

Turning around an economy can be a tough thing. This one's problem are particularly difficult as the solution creates a conundrum. The problem was lax credit, and too much credit. yet the governmemt now finds itself in the odd situation of trying to encourage more lax credit/lending/borrowing?

The very thing that was appealing about Obama, his youth and relative inexperience/newness is going to be a problem in trying to govern. His Dem counterparts in Congress and the party seem to want him to follow them, instead of the other way around. Here's this new junior Senator now in charge. I don't think their ego's can take it.

Fern
 
I highly recommend you read the book, Obama the Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate, it is written by a left leaning pro "roosevelt new deal" Historian expert Webster G Tarpley.

I don't like to read books, but this book was just so damn interesting. Obama's presidency will be as catastrophic as Big Jim Carter's. http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Po...&qid=1231455474&sr=8-1

Product Description
Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power. Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won public office in a contested election. His guru and controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago. All indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a quarter century ago. Trilateral Commission co-founder Brzezinski wants a global showdown with Russia and China far more dangerous for the United States than the Bush-Cheney Iraq adventure. Obama's economics are pure Skull & Bones/Chicago school austerity and sacrifice for American working families, all designed to bail out the bankrupt Wall Street elitist financiers who own Obama. Obama's lemming legions and Kool-Aid cult candidacy hearken back to Italy in 1919-1922, and raise the question of postmodern fascism in the United States today. Obama is a recipe for a world tragedy. No American voter can afford to ignore the lessons contained in this book.

You should also watch the video in my sig.
 
I don't think it is as reactive as you suggest. Daschle is there to push through healthcare legislation. Clinton is there to reassert America's image abroad and maybe put us in the forefront of peacemaking again. The reason it is packed with egos is because Obama is putting highly qualified people to achieve his basic objectives, but he doesn't feel the need to only appoint loyalists whom he can have constant control over and micromanage. Obviously I'm making most of this up but just a contrasting way of framing it to the one you've set forth.
 
Although Im (R) Im willing to give him a chance. Yes, he has alot on his plate, but changing that was his platform. I think his formation of his finance group was a good start. Having some of the most succesfull businessmen at his disposal is invaluable IMHO.

However, because he KNOWS what he's getting into, and ran primarily on a platform to CHANGE it, if he doesnt, EPIC FAIL. I will less tolerant to accept anything but success from him I think only because it was his platform and primary focus. Many things are true, including the fact it will take some time to get things turned around and he will be affected by some of Bush Co's policies early on. But I predict if he DOES fail, many on here will blame Bush which is UNACCEPTABLE. If he doesnt get shit straightened out, its no ones but his fault.
 
since we judge an administration by what happens DURING the administration and not by the things they fuck up in the future with their misguided policy, i would say YES, just because i think the next few years are going to be tough. We wont know the true effects of his presidency for decades
 
Originally posted by: Fern
No, I don't think it's doomed to fail.

Will be difficult, that's for sure.

Turning around an economy can be a tough thing. This one's problem are particularly difficult as the solution creates a conundrum. The problem was lax credit, and too much credit. yet the governmemt now finds itself in the odd situation of trying to encourage more lax credit/lending/borrowing?

The very thing that was appealing about Obama, his youth and relative inexperience/newness is going to be a problem in trying to govern. His Dem counterparts in Congress and the party seem to want him to follow them, instead of the other way around. Here's this new junior Senator now in charge. I don't think their ego's can take it.

Fern
Click to expand...

He may be the President, but his powers pale in comparison to those of Congress. I can't blame them for thinking that. If you look at Bush's Presidency, he was able to get the Congress to do his bidding because of the rigidness of his cabinet. Everyone was on message and Congress duly followed. I can't imagine that happening with Obama.

Originally posted by: Farang
I don't think it is as reactive as you suggest. Daschle is there to push through healthcare legislation. Clinton is there to reassert America's image abroad and maybe put us in the forefront of peacemaking again. The reason it is packed with egos is because Obama is putting highly qualified people to achieve his basic objectives, but he doesn't feel the need to only appoint loyalists whom he can have constant control over and micromanage. Obviously I'm making most of this up but just a contrasting way of framing it to the one you've set forth.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard anything regarding foreign policy. Nothing.
 
How about we give the administration a chance? Nothing can be as bad as what we've experienced the last 8 years.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
On the face of it you have a bunch of pragmatists. But, in truth, all I see are a bunch of Senators and eggheads with massive egos that are absolutely conscious of being part of a historic Administration. What I don't see is coherency or an outline as to where they want America to be in 10 to 20 years. No strategy means muddling through the next four years (from crisis to crisis). This is a disaster waiting to happen. An Administration needs to be proactive, not reactive. Despite the Bush Administration's many flaws, at least they knew where they wanted America to be and those in their Administration had written many policy papers and had been members of numerous think tanks. Obama's has nothing.

I really hope Obama can manage all those egos AND find the time to lead, rather than be lead.
Click to expand...

Obama Administration probably wont last that long.

the question is what does the Biden admininstration long term plans?
and who will be his VP?
 
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: Dari
On the face of it you have a bunch of pragmatists. But, in truth, all I see are a bunch of Senators and eggheads with massive egos that are absolutely conscious of being part of a historic Administration. What I don't see is coherency or an outline as to where they want America to be in 10 to 20 years. No strategy means muddling through the next four years (from crisis to crisis). This is a disaster waiting to happen. An Administration needs to be proactive, not reactive. Despite the Bush Administration's many flaws, at least they knew where they wanted America to be and those in their Administration had written many policy papers and had been members of numerous think tanks. Obama's has nothing.

I really hope Obama can manage all those egos AND find the time to lead, rather than be lead.
Click to expand...

Obama Administration probably wont last that long.

the question is what does the Biden admininstration long term plans?
and who will be his VP?
Click to expand...

What is this, another assassination prediction?:roll:

 
Originally posted by: K3N
I highly recommend you read the book, Obama the Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate, it is written by a left leaning pro "roosevelt new deal" Historian expert Webster G Tarpley.

I don't like to read books, but this book was just so damn interesting. Obama's presidency will be as catastrophic as Big Jim Carter's. http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Po...&qid=1231455474&sr=8-1

Product Description
Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power. Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won public office in a contested election. His guru and controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago. All indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a quarter century ago. Trilateral Commission co-founder Brzezinski wants a global showdown with Russia and China far more dangerous for the United States than the Bush-Cheney Iraq adventure. Obama's economics are pure Skull & Bones/Chicago school austerity and sacrifice for American working families, all designed to bail out the bankrupt Wall Street elitist financiers who own Obama. Obama's lemming legions and Kool-Aid cult candidacy hearken back to Italy in 1919-1922, and raise the question of postmodern fascism in the United States today. Obama is a recipe for a world tragedy. No American voter can afford to ignore the lessons contained in this book.

You should also watch the video in my sig.
Click to expand...

koo koo, koo koo, koo koo
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Fern
No, I don't think it's doomed to fail.

Will be difficult, that's for sure.

Turning around an economy can be a tough thing. This one's problem are particularly difficult as the solution creates a conundrum. The problem was lax credit, and too much credit. yet the governmemt now finds itself in the odd situation of trying to encourage more lax credit/lending/borrowing?

The very thing that was appealing about Obama, his youth and relative inexperience/newness is going to be a problem in trying to govern. His Dem counterparts in Congress and the party seem to want him to follow them, instead of the other way around. Here's this new junior Senator now in charge. I don't think their ego's can take it.

Fern
Click to expand...

He may be the President, but his powers pale in comparison to those of Congress. I can't blame them for thinking that. If you look at Bush's Presidency, he was able to get the Congress to do his bidding because of the rigidness of his cabinet. Everyone was on message and Congress duly followed. I can't imagine that happening with Obama.

Originally posted by: Farang
I don't think it is as reactive as you suggest. Daschle is there to push through healthcare legislation. Clinton is there to reassert America's image abroad and maybe put us in the forefront of peacemaking again. The reason it is packed with egos is because Obama is putting highly qualified people to achieve his basic objectives, but he doesn't feel the need to only appoint loyalists whom he can have constant control over and micromanage. Obviously I'm making most of this up but just a contrasting way of framing it to the one you've set forth.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard anything regarding foreign policy. Nothing.
Click to expand...

No, Obama's administration is not doomed to fail. That's a ridiculous statement.

No, the president's powers in the modern era vastly exceed those of Congress. He controls the information.

And finally, you have heard nothing about foreign policy from them because they have made an obvious and concerted effort to make it that way. The incoming president does not step on the current president's foreign policy.

 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Fern
No, I don't think it's doomed to fail.

Will be difficult, that's for sure.

Turning around an economy can be a tough thing. This one's problem are particularly difficult as the solution creates a conundrum. The problem was lax credit, and too much credit. yet the governmemt now finds itself in the odd situation of trying to encourage more lax credit/lending/borrowing?

The very thing that was appealing about Obama, his youth and relative inexperience/newness is going to be a problem in trying to govern. His Dem counterparts in Congress and the party seem to want him to follow them, instead of the other way around. Here's this new junior Senator now in charge. I don't think their ego's can take it.

Fern
Click to expand...

He may be the President, but his powers pale in comparison to those of Congress. I can't blame them for thinking that. If you look at Bush's Presidency, he was able to get the Congress to do his bidding because of the rigidness of his cabinet. Everyone was on message and Congress duly followed. I can't imagine that happening with Obama.

Originally posted by: Farang
I don't think it is as reactive as you suggest. Daschle is there to push through healthcare legislation. Clinton is there to reassert America's image abroad and maybe put us in the forefront of peacemaking again. The reason it is packed with egos is because Obama is putting highly qualified people to achieve his basic objectives, but he doesn't feel the need to only appoint loyalists whom he can have constant control over and micromanage. Obviously I'm making most of this up but just a contrasting way of framing it to the one you've set forth.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard anything regarding foreign policy. Nothing.
Click to expand...

No, Obama's administration is not doomed to fail. That's a ridiculous statement.

No, the president's powers in the modern era vastly exceed those of Congress. He controls the information.

And finally, you have heard nothing about foreign policy from them because they have made an obvious and concerted effort to make it that way. The incoming president does not step on the current president's foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Or, 1. its not going to change much, or 2. It's lacking.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, Obama's administration is not doomed to fail. That's a ridiculous statement.

No, the president's powers in the modern era vastly exceed those of Congress. He controls the information.

And finally, you have heard nothing about foreign policy from them because they have made an obvious and concerted effort to make it that way. The incoming president does not step on the current president's foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Or, 1. its not going to change much, or 2. It's lacking.
Click to expand...

Since all president-elects do the exact same thing, that could have been said about every president in history. (I'm sure there are a few faux pas that have been committed and widely condemned, but the whole 'there is only one president at a time' thing is widely known.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
No, I don't think it's doomed to fail.

Will be difficult, that's for sure.

Turning around an economy can be a tough thing. This one's problem are particularly difficult as the solution creates a conundrum. The problem was lax credit, and too much credit. yet the governmemt now finds itself in the odd situation of trying to encourage more lax credit/lending/borrowing?

The very thing that was appealing about Obama, his youth and relative inexperience/newness is going to be a problem in trying to govern. His Dem counterparts in Congress and the party seem to want him to follow them, instead of the other way around. Here's this new junior Senator now in charge. I don't think their ego's can take it.

Fern
Click to expand...

The economy could turn arond rather quickly if people pull out of the malaise they're in. Perception is reality there. Having an inspirational head of state definitely helps.

I stood in longer lines Christmas shopping than I did last year, but apparently nobody had any money to buy presents if you listen to the news.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the news next Christmas will be much more positive than it was this year.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Fern
No, I don't think it's doomed to fail.

Will be difficult, that's for sure.

Turning around an economy can be a tough thing. This one's problem are particularly difficult as the solution creates a conundrum. The problem was lax credit, and too much credit. yet the governmemt now finds itself in the odd situation of trying to encourage more lax credit/lending/borrowing?

The very thing that was appealing about Obama, his youth and relative inexperience/newness is going to be a problem in trying to govern. His Dem counterparts in Congress and the party seem to want him to follow them, instead of the other way around. Here's this new junior Senator now in charge. I don't think their ego's can take it.

Fern
Click to expand...

He may be the President, but his powers pale in comparison to those of Congress. I can't blame them for thinking that. If you look at Bush's Presidency, he was able to get the Congress to do his bidding because of the rigidness of his cabinet. Everyone was on message and Congress duly followed. I can't imagine that happening with Obama.

Originally posted by: Farang
I don't think it is as reactive as you suggest. Daschle is there to push through healthcare legislation. Clinton is there to reassert America's image abroad and maybe put us in the forefront of peacemaking again. The reason it is packed with egos is because Obama is putting highly qualified people to achieve his basic objectives, but he doesn't feel the need to only appoint loyalists whom he can have constant control over and micromanage. Obviously I'm making most of this up but just a contrasting way of framing it to the one you've set forth.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard anything regarding foreign policy. Nothing.
Click to expand...

No, Obama's administration is not doomed to fail. That's a ridiculous statement.

No, the president's powers in the modern era vastly exceed those of Congress. He controls the information.

And finally, you have heard nothing about foreign policy from them because they have made an obvious and concerted effort to make it that way. The incoming president does not step on the current president's foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Funny, I remember December 2000 when Bush was introducing his National Security team to the world and all the things they were going to do. They did them.
 
Originally posted by: Dari

Funny, I remember December 2000 when Bush was introducing his National Security team to the world and all the things they were going to do. They did them.
Click to expand...

Well by all means present some links to this.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Dari

Funny, I remember December 2000 when Bush was introducing his National Security team to the world and all the things they were going to do. They did them.
Click to expand...

Well by all means present some links to this.
Click to expand...

I don't have a link but it's one of those things I never forgot. I think you can find it on Youtube or PBS's "Bush's War".
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Dari

Funny, I remember December 2000 when Bush was introducing his National Security team to the world and all the things they were going to do. They did them.
Click to expand...

Well by all means present some links to this.
Click to expand...

I don't have a link but it's one of those things I never forgot. I think you can find it on Youtube or PBS's "Bush's War".
Click to expand...

There is a difference between stating broad based policy objectives (which Obama has done repeatedly) and commenting on current issues like Gaza, etc. If you were referring to Obama not making broad policy objectives known, that is incorrect. In fact, you can go look at his website right now for what he says about that. I was referring to him commenting on current events, something president-elects traditionally work very hard not to do (and tend to get in trouble for doing)
 
i think you mean to ask...

"did the Bush administration set up the next president, no matter who they are, for failure?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top