Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is Obama a good communicator?

  • 02-02-2011 4:22pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭


    It strikes me that Obama is a somewhat mediocre communicator. Generally throughout the election campaign Obama was described as charismatic and an astute communicator however on becoming president much of that communication seems to be lacking. Is it the case that Obama as the first African American to become president along with his multicultural background and youth was more symbolic of change especially in contrast to his predecessor than was down to his own ability to communicate. Maybe it was the message of change itself that stroke a chord with people while simultaneously meaning different things to different people. It was probably a bit of everything.

    Today it seems to have largely evaporated as it only really could. While recent events like his response to the tragedy in Tuscon show in an improvement in Obama's ability to communicate his empathy with the public, previous events such as Gulf oil spill seemed to show Obama lacking in this area. Obama comes across as a president concerned with policies and their implications which is great but he seems to fail at getting his message across.

    Obama certainly has charisma in terms of his ability to project the image of a calm, competent presidential figure but does his ability to communicate to the public match this?


Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Good communication is "Message sent = message received"

    I don't think he has any difficulty in this. The question is more a matter of what he's trying to communicate in the first place.

    NTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    The problem isn't his communication its the constant misrepresentation of everything that he is doing by psychotic right wing commentators like Beck and Limbaugh and the machinations of fox news and the rest of the murdoch media empire and the willingness of the gullible tea party faithful to believe their nonsense.

    Of course we've already gone through (in previous threads) how there is a significant demographic in the conservative population that cannot stand the idea of a black president and for them, it doesn't matter what Obama does. I'm talking about the Obama is a muslim/socialist/communist crowd.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    IMHO, in the run up to his election, he was a great sales man surrounded by other great sales men.
    But the reality of being president and tending to that rudder is far more challenging especially in these trying times.
    In due fairness Obama stepped up to one of the most difficult and complex presidencies in modern times.
    These days it is more his proposed domestic policies that didn’t sell that well in the past two years, not the man or his oratory skill.
    That said he is a huge improvement over GWB but will never be a Bill Clinton, who can say more that even more people can relate to in fewer words.

    Handling the current situation with Egypt is incredibly difficult and so easy to end up on the wrong side of history and I think he’s done as good as he possibly can, so far.
    Walking an oratory tightrope with no safety net under very volatile circumstances.
    . …but it’s still developing and evolving and far from over.
    Can you imagine McCain or W in this? Yikes
    This a time where I appreciate his pragmatism and wish him the best of luck.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Memnoch wrote: »
    The problem isn't his communication its the constant misrepresentation of everything that he is doing by psychotic right wing commentators like Beck and Limbaugh and the machinations of fox news and the rest of the murdoch media empire and the willingness of the gullible tea party faithful to believe their nonsense.

    I'm not entirely convinced that applies to the majority of us who don't listen to Beck, Limbaugh, or keep the TV on Fox News. Actually, sometimes I wonder if they have a greater audience on the left than on the right.

    The question addressed was if Obama was a good communicator, not if Beck is good at muddling the issue. After all, good communication is able to result in message sent = message received even in the face of interference. Hence the radio alphabet, for example.

    The question for the OP is, as best as possible, what message does he think Obama is failing to correctly communicate. That may very well redefine the thread's premise.

    NTM


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,537 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    He appears to be a good, articulate spokesperson for the United States, especially when he addresses audiences in other countries. Obama is far superior to GW Bush in speaking ability. GW Bush was often an embarrassment. I'm a bit too young to remember much about Bill Clinton speaking (10 years ago), and do not remember shaking my lolly at Daddy Bush (18 years ago).


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    I'm not entirely convinced that applies to the majority of us who don't listen to Beck, Limbaugh, or keep the TV on Fox News. Actually, sometimes I wonder if they have a greater audience on the left than on the right.

    NTM

    Truer words where rarely spoken.

    This is bordering on an obsession.

    And even as someone who does tune into fox, besides many other news outlets I cannot concur with Memoch’s assertion.
    Especially since the November elections and recently he’s received much praise on fox from their more reputable programming.



    On super bowl Sunday, Obama will be on O’Reiley (not a news program)
    Obama
    O’ Reiley
    O yeah …..this will interesting. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Maybe I'm confusing Obama's ability to communicate with persuasion and the message itself. The following is interesting though:

    5jyhc1hizkysrttpctc6yq.gif

    Federal healthcare seemed to be positively received until the election year in 08 which would suggest the change in public opinion against federal healthcare was already under way. Maybe I'm overestimating the presidents ability to influence public opinion but it might have been different had he managed to sway public opinion back in favour of federal legislation. I presume healthcare legislation was only discussed in generalities until mid 09 with no legislation to debate only the principle of federal healthcare.

    In the meantime however support plummeted which may have been a factor in the production of poor legislation. It isn't outside the realms of possibility that Obama and indeed reforming legislators were pressured by anti reform rhetoric into a range of concessions which produced poor legislation. It seems for a decade that the principle of federal mandated healthcare was mostly approved until a move to enact it was finally made when support was already waning. Perhaps Obama could have turned back the tide on this? I guess persuasion and communication are not the same thing anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    I'm not entirely convinced that applies to the majority of us who don't listen to Beck, Limbaugh, or keep the TV on Fox News. Actually, sometimes I wonder if they have a greater audience on the left than on the right.
    I certainly think there is an element of the media in general giving a lot of airtime to these guys, certainly with regard to Beck there is kinda a feeling of "what crazy conspiracy theory is this guy pushing now". People who don't necessarily believe the stuff watch it for the sheer theatrics and lunacy of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭GoldRush4821


    Tbh the way a president acts during the presidential campaign never matches the way he acts when he finally gets into the white house. Be it policies, views on controversial subjects or communication, things never quite work out the same way when they finally get into office. No doubt, Obama was an impressive communicator during the campaign, however to a certain extent I think his appealing message of change invigorated his speeches. As we all know, it is much easier to communicate criticism of an incumbent government (witness Labour and Fine Gael as we speak) than to communicate difficult policies such as tax hikes and cuts in public spending. Nevertheless, Obama is an intelligent and articulate guy, educated at Harvard Law School, who is struggling under the weight of the healthcare bill, a newly Republican Congress and various other crises which all take a toll on his ability to communicate effectively with the public.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭GoldRush4821


    I certainly think there is an element of the media in general giving a lot of airtime to these guys, certainly with regard to Beck there is kinda a feeling of "what crazy conspiracy theory is this guy pushing now". People who don't necessarily believe the stuff watch it for the sheer theatrics and lunacy of it.

    But what people are you talking about? Of course all of us sitting here in Ireland can look at FOX and realise what utter propaganda it is, yet the majority of conservative Americans rely on this channel for all their information. I am almost certain there are very few Republicans in America who watch Beck or O Reilly for the lunacy of it. So while we may be able to look at it and take everything they say with a pinch of salt, most Americans do not and thats a problem when trying to find objective views on Obama from American media.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,537 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    He has a Republican Congress now to whittle down his plans.
    The "Republican Congress?" You mean the Republican controlled US House of Representatives, which is one of the two houses of Congress?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    Black Swan wrote: »
    The "Republican Congress?" You mean the Republican controlled US House of Representatives, which is one of the two houses of Congress?

    Oh pleeeeaaase
    Hardly anybody would use the politically correct long description in conversation.

    I would much prefer a republican senate unless we did have a truly outstanding republican candidate for president which I don’t see at the moment unless Ron Paul runs.



    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    There’s a difference between a Communicator and a Manipulator. I'd say before taking office we was a gifted Communicator, now its become evident he’s a chronic Manipulator. Let ObamaCare serve as your guide (and the CBO now says it will cost us 800,000 jobs... surprise surprise).

    When I was younger, all I wanted was a BMW. Now with the Obama Administration I got the BM part, but would rather have had the W.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,537 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    EastTexas wrote: »
    Oh pleeeeaaase
    Hardly anybody would use the politically correct long description in conversation.
    "Hardly anybody?" What are you implying by this statement?

    There are TWO HOUSES of "Congress." ONLY ONE of the TWO HOUSES is currently controlled by the Republicans. The other is currently controlled by the Democrats.

    To say "Republican Congress" is a gross error. With the same degree of error, someone could also say the Democrat Congress. Are you aware of the Constitutional Convention and the Great Compromise of 1787, and what constitutes a bicameral, or two-chambered "Congress?" Or how this bicameral Congress functions in terms of balancing state rights and representative government by population in terms of legislation? Or how BOTH HOUSES often have to cooperate to pass legislation for the president to sign? Or how BOTH HOUSES of "Congress" function as a check-and-balance?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    But what people are you talking about? Of course all of us sitting here in Ireland can look at FOX and realise what utter propaganda it is, yet the majority of conservative Americans rely on this channel for all their information. I am almost certain there are very few Republicans in America who watch Beck or O Reilly for the lunacy of it. So while we may be able to look at it and take everything they say with a pinch of salt, most Americans do not and thats a problem when trying to find objective views on Obama from American media.
    Well there is a difference between Beck and O'Reilly, both are propaganda but Beck's show is sheer theatre and lunacy. I suppose if some US conservatives hold up Sarah Palin as someone to lead the country then they may be just as gullible to believe Beck is a conservative intellectual and O'Reilly is honest in the presentation of his arguments.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Amerika wrote: »
    There’s a difference between a Communicator and a Manipulator. I'd say before taking office we was a gifted Communicator, now its become evident he’s a chronic Manipulator. Let ObamaCare serve as your guide (and the CBO now says it will cost us 800,000 jobs... surprise surprise).
    He doesn't appear manipulative to me, a great deal of criticism directed towards him is entirely manipulative though preying on prejudice and fear of muslims in the wake of 9/11 and the deep American fear of socialism developed by McCarthyism. Obama is neither.

    As far as I understand it, 800,000 jobs will not be lost. What will happen is 800,000 people who are working to afford healthcare insurance are expected leave the labour force which isn't the same thing.
    Amerika wrote: »
    When I was younger, all I wanted was a BMW. Now with the Obama Administration I got the BM part, but would rather have had the W.
    :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Barack Hussein Obama, the greatest spoofer of them all

    He has a Republican Congress now to whittle down his plans.

    It's easy to be the hurler on the ditch and knock your opponents plans, far harder to get into office and improve them

    paddypower.com will give 8/1 on a Republican president elected in 2012, I like those odds
    I'd be pretty positive that Obama will get a second term. There does not seem to be a viable republican contender at the moment at least. Obama's approval ratings have increased in the new year and his most unpopular legislative agenda seems to be behind him. His approval ratings are about on par with Clinton and above Reagan at the same stage of there first terms.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    Black Swan wrote: »
    "Hardly anybody?" What are you implying by this statement?

    There are TWO HOUSES of "Congress." ONLY ONE of the TWO HOUSES is currently controlled by the Republicans. The other is currently controlled by the Democrats.

    To say "Republican Congress" is a gross error. With the same degree of error, someone could also say the Democrat Congress. Are you aware of the Constitutional Convention and the Great Compromise of 1787, and what constitutes a bicameral, or two-chambered "Congress?" Or how this bicameral Congress functions in terms of balancing state rights and representative government by population in terms of legislation? Or how BOTH HOUSES often have to cooperate to pass legislation for the president to sign? Or how BOTH HOUSES of "Congress" function as a check-and-balance?


    In legalese if you are penning bills as a legislator or a lawyer, yes you would use the politically correct long form, but not in everyday conversation.
    There are also variation such as “Republican-controlled Congress” or “ Democratic Congress” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782.html frequently used by journalists.
    But nobody in their right mind would use the P.C. correct long form in an informal discussion.
    Unless you wish this be to a new special rule o this board.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    I'd be pretty positive that Obama will get a second term. There does not seem to be a viable republican contender at the moment at least. Obama's approval ratings have increased in the new year and his most unpopular legislative agenda seems to be behind him. His approval ratings are about on par with Clinton and above Reagan at the same stage of there first terms.

    Agreed, unless Obama where to embark on series of grave missteps between now and election time he will be reelected.
    Personally, I have confidence in him in regards to foreign policy but his litmus test remains to be the economy and mounting debt.
    His proposal of a 53 billion Dollar 2nd train system when Amtrak can’t carry itself because of lack of customers was a bit of a slap in the face considering the debt. Clearly demonstrats a disconnect from fiscal reality.
    That’s like shopping for jewelry when you’re supposed to pay the rent.

    That said, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie could potentially give him a serious run for his money, but he said he won’t run,…. so far.
    I have no problem with him getting a 2nd term with a Republican Congress controlling the purse strings and always appreciate a balance of power between democrats and republicans.
    Representation of all the people, not just half of the country like it was before last year's midterm elections in his first two years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    Maybe I'm confusing Obama's ability to communicate with persuasion and the message itself. The following is interesting though:

    5jyhc1hizkysrttpctc6yq.gif

    Federal healthcare seemed to be positively received until the election year in 08 which would suggest the change in public opinion against federal healthcare was already under way. Maybe I'm overestimating the presidents ability to influence public opinion but it might have been different had he managed to sway public opinion back in favour of federal legislation. I presume healthcare legislation was only discussed in generalities until mid 09 with no legislation to debate only the principle of federal healthcare.

    In the meantime however support plummeted which may have been a factor in the production of poor legislation. It isn't outside the realms of possibility that Obama and indeed reforming legislators were pressured by anti reform rhetoric into a range of concessions which produced poor legislation. It seems for a decade that the principle of federal mandated healthcare was mostly approved until a move to enact it was finally made when support was already waning. Perhaps Obama could have turned back the tide on this? I guess persuasion and communication are not the same thing anyway.

    “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?”

    The question is poorly phrased, because the issue is not whether the federal government should “make sure”, but whether it should PROVIDE it or FORCE people to purchase this product from a private vendor.

    “ To make sure” Obama could have taken on the health insurance industrial complex.
    The very corporations at the heart of the problem.
    Instead he appeased them with backroom deals and infringed on the American people and the constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    EastTexas wrote: »
    “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?”

    The question is poorly phrased, because the issue is not whether the federal government should “make sure”, but whether it should PROVIDE it or FORCE people to purchase this product from a private vendor.

    I don't think the question is poorly phrased at all. This is a FUNDAMENTAL ideological issue. I.E. Do you believe that the government should ensure everyone has healthcare or not. How exactly that get's implemented and what form that takes is down to the law makers to sort out. Now you can disagree with the way Obama went about implementing his vision but that doesn't change the fundamental question, nor does it change the fact that despite being 8 years in power, Bush and the republicans did nothing to try and address the issue of 10s of millions of americans being without healthcare or that of ordinary hardworking people having to sell their homes if someone in the family got cancer or other serious illnesses.
    “ To make sure” Obama could have taken on the health insurance industrial complex.
    The very corporations at the heart of the problem.
    Instead he appeased them with backroom deals and infringed on the American people and the constitution.

    I agree with you partially here. Business lobbies in the US (and elsewhere) wield FAR too much power and influence.

    But when you say this, you should not forget that the republicans refused to cooperate in a bipartisan endeavour. They weren't even remotely interested in curtailing the power of the insurance companies and so Obama was forced into this ugly compromise.

    But if you want to blame anyone, then it is the republicans who always seem to put the interests of big business before that of the people. (The democrats do it too, just not as fanatically.))


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭GoldRush4821


    Black Swan wrote: »
    "Hardly anybody?" What are you implying by this statement?

    There are TWO HOUSES of "Congress." ONLY ONE of the TWO HOUSES is currently controlled by the Republicans. The other is currently controlled by the Democrats.

    To say "Republican Congress" is a gross error. With the same degree of error, someone could also say the Democrat Congress. Are you aware of the Constitutional Convention and the Great Compromise of 1787, and what constitutes a bicameral, or two-chambered "Congress?" Or how this bicameral Congress functions in terms of balancing state rights and representative government by population in terms of legislation? Or how BOTH HOUSES often have to cooperate to pass legislation for the president to sign? Or how BOTH HOUSES of "Congress" function as a check-and-balance?

    You are being extremely pedantic here, I must say. Having used the term myself, it is quite obvious what is meant by Republican Congress. Your labeling of it as a "gross error" may be right if the president said it, or someone speaking formally in the media, but it can hardly be called a gross error when not only is this a forum we are on, where speaking off hand is the norm, but the phrase itself is meant to be taken at implicit value.

    We all know that Republican Congress means Republican controlled House of Representatives. I think Irish people are more in the habit of making this mistake because we see the lower house of the Dail as the legislative making, authoritative body and the Seanad as more of a boys club who effect very little difference in making legislation. However, in the American context, the Senate has equal powers to propose bills in most areas except those concerning revenue generation (e.g tax hikes), therefore it would be a bigger mistake for an American to make.

    Although Republican Congress is not the correct usage of the term, your criticism holds no weight considering the context of the remark.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,537 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    You are being extremely pedantic here, I must say. Having used the term myself, it is quite obvious what is meant by Republican Congress. Your labeling of it as a "gross error" may be right if the president said it, or someone speaking formally in the media, but it can hardly be called a gross error when not only is this a forum we are on, where speaking off hand is the norm, but the phrase itself is meant to be taken at implicit value.
    This is an Irish site, not an American one. Consequently, it is not "extremely pedantic" to be clear in what we post, so that we can engage all our (mostly) Irish readers in discussions, and not discourage them from participating (as so often happens in other forums), no matter the extent of their knowledge of US Politics.

    The meaning of "Republican Congress" is also time sensitive. If you said "Republican Congress" during the 109th "Congress" in 2005, when the Republicans in fact had a majority in both Houses (Senate R-55 & House R-232), it would mean something very different from referring to the "Republican Congress" in 2011, when Republicans only have a majority in one house (only the US House of Representatives).
    He has a Republican Congress now to whittle down his plans.

    Replying to the above post, look how nonsensical the discussion can become within the original context of the feelingstressed post:

    Although Obama now has to contend with the "Republican Congress" since the mid-term 2010 elections, he still has the Democratic Congress and his power of veto.

    Does anyone see the craic in the above statement?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    I'm sorry Swan but you ARE being pedantic. It was obvious what ET meant by his post when he was talking about the republican congress. Context is everything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I don't think the question is poorly phrased at all. This is a FUNDAMENTAL ideological issue. I.E. Do you believe that the government should ensure everyone has healthcare or not. How exactly that get's implemented and what form that takes is down to the law makers to sort out. Now you can disagree with the way Obama went about implementing his vision but that doesn't change the fundamental question, nor does it change the fact that despite being 8 years in power, Bush and the republicans did nothing to try and address the issue of 10s of millions of americans being without healthcare or that of ordinary hardworking people having to sell their homes if someone in the family got cancer or other serious illnesses.



    I agree with you partially here. Business lobbies in the US (and elsewhere) wield FAR too much power and influence.

    But when you say this, you should not forget that the republicans refused to cooperate in a bipartisan endeavour. They weren't even remotely interested in curtailing the power of the insurance companies and so Obama was forced into this ugly compromise.

    But if you want to blame anyone, then it is the republicans who always seem to put the interests of big business before that of the people. (The democrats do it too, just not as fanatically.))

    Let's agree to disagree. :)


    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    Black Swan wrote: »
    This is an Irish site, not an American one. Consequently, it is not "extremely pedantic" to be clear in what we post, so that we can engage all our (mostly) Irish readers in discussions, and not discourage them from participating (as so often happens in other forums), no matter the extent of their knowledge of US Politics.

    The meaning of "Republican Congress" is also time sensitive. If you said "Republican Congress" during the 109th "Congress" in 2005, when the Republicans in fact had a majority in both Houses (Senate R-55 & House R-232), it would mean something very different from referring to the "Republican Congress" in 2011, when Republicans only have a majority in one house (only the US House of Representatives).



    Replying to the above post, look how nonsensical the discussion can become within the original context of the feelingstressed post:

    Although Obama now has to contend with the "Republican Congress" since the mid-term 2010 elections, he still has the Democratic Congress and his power of veto.

    Does anyone see the craic in the above statement?

    With all due respect Madam Moderator, that is a bit of an insult to Irish people posting here.
    I fully trust them to understand the context of “ Republican Congress” and to know what year it is.
    Why should they be made to recite the politically correct long form like school children to prove that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    EastTexas wrote: »
    Agreed, unless Obama where to embark on series of grave missteps between now and election time he will be reelected.
    Personally, I have confidence in him in regards to foreign policy but his litmus test remains to be the economy and mounting debt.
    His proposal of a 53 billion Dollar 2nd train system when Amtrak can’t carry itself because of lack of customers was a bit of a slap in the face considering the debt. Clearly demonstrats a disconnect from fiscal reality.
    That’s like shopping for jewelry when you’re supposed to pay the rent.
    The high speed train plans do strike me as indulgent and completely unnecessary, to me it would seem the primary issue with regard to infrastructure should be updating present infrastructure rather engaging in new projects especially ones with questionable benefits. Regardless the deficit is a growing concern and as time progresses pressure will be mounting for reduced expenditure and increased taxation with implications for the economy.
    EastTexas wrote: »
    “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?”

    The question is poorly phrased, because the issue is not whether the federal government should “make sure”, but whether it should PROVIDE it or FORCE people to purchase this product from a private vendor.
    Healthcare legislation initially contained a public option which covered the argument of providing healthcare versus forcing healthcare on individuals. Either way someone has to pay for healthcare either the individual or the taxpayer. Nevertheless, even the final piece of legislation might prove very successful if only the following is dealt with:
    EastTexas wrote: »
    “ To make sure” Obama could have taken on the health insurance industrial complex.
    The very corporations at the heart of the problem.
    Instead he appeased them with backroom deals and infringed on the American people and the constitution.
    The above was the failure of the legislation imho and it would seem that the final piece of legislation was at the request of interest groups and partisan politics.


Advertisement