Obama is a pathetic loser

Boulevardier

President Obama, elected amid huge hype at the end of 2008, has failed to live up to any of it. He emerges from the recent budget debacle as a damaged and discredited entity.

His main fault has not been what he stands for. It is that he has wasted huge amounts of time trying to make compromises with a middle ground which, it should be obvious, is no longer there.

Once it became clear that the GOP is beholden to the lunatic tea party, he should have fought them resolutely, much as Lincoln fought the tea party's predecessors, the slave-holders of the South.

Instead, he (predictably) blinked first and caved in. That is exactly how liberals have lost every major US political battle since the 1970s - because the rightists are prepared to fight all the way, while the left are gutless.

dlofnep

Agreed that he attempted to compromise too much. He should have ran the country the way he saw fit, as that is what he was elected for.

beagle001

He believed in keynesian economics too much when the crisis began in 2008 and they are now deeply in the whole as his approach has not worked.
I remember speaking to a couple of different groups of Americans back in 2009 and I was optomistic about Obama,now these were average americans some retirees,some african americans,latino,irish and they all said he would be a one term president.
I found it hard to believe then but now you see it,the Republicans wil get in next term that I am sure off,they are going to strangle him with austerity measures that his rock star image will not wash very well with your average American come the next presidential race.
What has he achieved since taking office,not a lot granted his hands have been tied,two conflict zones to deal with and a struggling economy,all stimulation has failed and now the last thing he wants to do is crucify the middle class and the poor and this is what the deal struck yesterday will do.
He is a good speaker,likeable person but he is lacking in conviction and numbers to push his real ideas through the houses of government.

Einhard

Boulevardier wrote: »

President Obama, elected amid huge hype at the end of 2008, has failed to live up to any of it. He emerges from the recent budget debacle as a damaged and discredited entity.

I don't think that's fair at all. People seem to have awfully short memories- with his Health Care bill, he introduced the most socially far-reaching legislation since the Johnson administration, while he also overhauled the oversight mechanisms for the financial sector in the states. On his watch, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed. True, he didn't drive it personally, but he made it known that he was against the law, and created the context for it to be repealed.

I also think his economic policies have been broadly. yes, America is still struggling for growth, but compared to the economic situation on his election, there has been a marked improvement. He took huge criticism for bailing out the banks, even though the federal government made money on the programme, whilst the automobile industry, which ideologues on the Right were willing to see sacrificed on the altar of dogma, has rebounded. Yet Obama is still criticised for his intervention there.

His main fault has not been what he stands for. It is that he has wasted huge amounts of time trying to make compromises with a middle ground which, it should be obvious, is no longer there.

His hands are bound by the Constitution. The American people wanted checks and balances; the American people voted for a divided House- Obama cannot just ignore them.

Once it became clear that the GOP is beholden to the lunatic tea party, he should have fought them resolutely, much as Lincoln fought the tea party's predecessors, the slave-holders of the South.

He should have fought a Civil War with the supporters of the Tea Party? Suspended Habeas Corpus until he got the votes he needed for his own debt plan?

Also, the slaveholders of the south were primarily Whigs and Democrats, whilst Lincoln was Republican. I don't see how the Tea Party can legitimately equated with the old slaveholding ascendancy.

Instead, he (predictably) blinked first and caved in. That is exactly how liberals have lost every major US political battle since the 1970s - because the rightists are prepared to fight all the way, while the left are gutless.

It might seem that way to many people, but it's the Left who have won most of the major battles in the US since the 60s at least. Welfare has been extended dramatically since then; minorities have won their civil rights; abortion has been legalised; Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed; and increasingly, gay marriage is becoming an option. The reason the Right are fighting tooth and nail for their beliefs, is because they see how their worldview has been so consistently undermined over the past few decades. They are the losing side, and now they're fighting back.

dlofnep wrote: »

Agreed that he attempted to compromise too much. He should have ran the country the way he saw fit, as that is what he was elected for.

He swore on his accession to respect the Constitution, so he can't very well do as he pleases.

matthew8

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think that's fair at all. People seem to have awfully short memories- with his Health Care bill, he introduced the most socially far-reaching legislation since the Johnson administration, while he also overhauled the oversight mechanisms for the financial sector in the states. On his watch, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed. True, he didn't drive it personally, but he made it known that he was against the law, and created the context for it to be repealed.

I also think his economic policies have been broadly. yes, America is still struggling for growth, but compared to the economic situation on his election, there has been a marked improvement. He took huge criticism for bailing out the banks, even though the federal government made money on the programme, whilst the automobile industry, which ideologues on the Right were willing to see sacrificed on the altar of dogma, has rebounded. Yet Obama is still criticised for his intervention there.



His hands are bound by the Constitution. The American people wanted checks and balances; the American people voted for a divided House- Obama cannot just ignore them.



He should have fought a Civil War with the supporters of the Tea Party? Suspended Habeas Corpus until he got the votes he needed for his own debt plan?

Also, the slaveholders of the south were primarily Whigs and Democrats, whilst Lincoln was Republican. I don't see how the Tea Party can legitimately equated with the old slaveholding ascendancy.



It might seem that way to many people, but it's the Left who have won most of the major battles in the US since the 60s at least. Welfare has been extended dramatically since then; minorities have won their civil rights; abortion has been legalised; Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed; and increasingly, gay marriage is becoming an option. The reason the Right are fighting tooth and nail for their beliefs, is because they see how their worldview has been so consistently undermined over the past few decades. They are the losing side, and now they're fighting back.






He swore on his accession to respect the Constitution, so he can't very well do as he pleases.

I'm glad you pointed out that the democrats were the slaveholders, but was Lincoln not a whig before he was a republican?

As for Obama's economic policy, there is still a distinct possibility of the auto insudstry going bankrupt but fair play for getting a loan repaid. Also, what was so great about Obamacare? The summary I got was force people to buy health insurance (limitting personal freedom) and force employers to buy it for employees (increasing employment costs and reducing competition for workers as the old "health and dental" was off the table anyway). I doubt it could have been that outreaching if it was meant to save money.

Einhard

matthew8 wrote: »

I'm glad you pointed out that the democrats were the slaveholders, but was Lincoln not a whig before he was a republican?

Well it wasn't just Democrats that were slaveholders- indeed, some Republican members of Lincoln's administration owned slaves. And yes, Lincoln was a Whig if I remember correctly, but ran on the Republican ticket for presidency.

As for Obama's economic policy, there is still a distinct possibility of the auto insudstry going bankrupt but fair play for getting a loan repaid. Also, what was so great about Obamacare? The summary I got was force people to buy health insurance (limitting personal freedom) and force employers to buy it for employees (increasing employment costs and reducing competition for workers as the old "health and dental" was off the table anyway). I doubt it could have been that outreaching if it was meant to save money.

I didn't make any judgement on whether Obama's Health Care reforms were positive or otherwise; merely that they represented a legislative triumph and, as the major piece of social legislation since the 60s, cannot be just ignored when discussing his achievements.

mikemac

If he decides to run again does he get an automatic nomination from the Democrats?
Or can other Democrats run against him and try to be the nominee?

I suppose what I'm asking is will the Democrats run a primary even if Obama wants to go again?

matthew8

mikemac wrote: »

If he decides to run again does he get an automatic nomination from the Democrats?
Or can other Democrats run against him and try to be the nominee?

I suppose what I'm asking is will the Democrats run a primary even if Obama wants to go again?

Some democrats, such as Kucinich, may run against him in the primaries. In 1976 Ford faced a big primary challenge.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

Boulevardier wrote: »

President Obama, elected amid huge hype at the end of 2008, has failed to live up to any of it. He emerges from the recent budget debacle as a damaged and discredited entity.

His main fault has not been what he stands for. It is that he has wasted huge amounts of time trying to make compromises with a middle ground which, it should be obvious, is no longer there.

Once it became clear that the GOP is beholden to the lunatic tea party, he should have fought them resolutely, much as Lincoln fought the tea party's predecessors, the slave-holders of the South.

Instead, he (predictably) blinked first and caved in. That is exactly how liberals have lost every major US political battle since the 1970s - because the rightists are prepared to fight all the way, while the left are gutless.

liberals make up a smaller percentage of americans than conservatives ( with a large C ) , obama is where he is because he lost the independants

matthew8

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He had 2 years to do whatever he wanted, and he bottled it. Not even immigration reform! Just unpopular healthcare "reform". Congress should always be more important than the whitehouse. Ron Paul realises this.

irishh_bob

matthew8 wrote: »

Some democrats, such as Kucinich, may run against him in the primaries. In 1976 Ford faced a big primary challenge.

didnt ted kennedy run against jimmy carter in 1980 for the dem nomination , i doubt hillary will run against obama , more likely to wait till 2016

Manach

Obama actually lives in the real world, and has pass through some legislation which I'm sure he feels is of benefit to all the American people, and not just the liberal/union wings of his party. The whole US system is a matter of checks and balances, with major elections every two years. To ram through legisislation would have alienated a broad sweep of US public opinion.

onemorechance

Boulevardier wrote: »

President Obama, elected amid huge hype at the end of 2008, has failed to live up to any of it. He emerges from the recent budget debacle as a damaged and discredited entity.

His main fault has not been what he stands for. It is that he has wasted huge amounts of time trying to make compromises with a middle ground which, it should be obvious, is no longer there.

Once it became clear that the GOP is beholden to the lunatic tea party, he should have fought them resolutely, much as Lincoln fought the tea party's predecessors, the slave-holders of the South.

Instead, he (predictably) blinked first and caved in. That is exactly how liberals have lost every major US political battle since the 1970s - because the rightists are prepared to fight all the way, while the left are gutless.

Manach wrote: »

Obama actually lives in the real world, and has pass through some legislation which I'm sure he feels is of benefit to all the American people, and not just the liberal/union wings of his party. The whole US system is a matter of checks and balances, with major elections every two years. To ram through legisislation would have alienated a broad sweep of US public opinion.

Having spent so much [half a billion] in donations to get elected, a USA president won't [cannot] act in a fair and unbiased manner, especially with another election coming up.

pgmcpq

Boulevardier wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A little harsh there. Certainly a lot of his supporters are disappointed. And I would agree that he expended too much energy and political good will looking for a middle ground. In fairness he was trying to lay the groundwork for the rest of his presidency. I don't think anyone could have predicted the election of a group that would simply grind things to a halt in the way the freshman Republican have.
Still if you look at his achievements to date they are pretty impressive, the stimulus bill, rescue of the auto industry (which seems to have woken them up), health care (warts and all), financial regulation (weak but a start), "don't ask don't tell" repealed, an arms agreement with Russia - ( he even got Congress to ratify it !), reform of the MMS.

Yes, we have not seen a lot of what we voted for. But there has been progress - especially given the deep hole dug during the rest of the decade ( we joked before 2008 that no one would want the job of president ). After the first taste of the Tea Party in action, I suspect the the House may swing back in 2012. Also with a presidential vote, voter turnout will be larger and the personal vote for Obama will translate down the ticket. Then it will be interesting to see what happens in a second term. I think if he gets a second term he will be willing to risk his presidency a little more.

matthew8 wrote: »

. Also, what was so great about Obamacare? The summary I got was force people to buy health insurance (limitting personal freedom) and force employers to buy it for employees (increasing employment costs and reducing competition for workers as the old "health and dental" was off the table anyway). I doubt it could have been that outreaching if it was meant to save money.

The summary you read seems to have been a little short of detail.
While not the solution that was needed it at least gives an incentive to people to get insurance. It also establishes health care insurance groups that individuals without access to an existing group (usually through an employer) making it much more affordable.

Having health insurance means that people will have access to primary health care rather than using ( the considerably more expensive ) emergency health care (i.e. the emergency room (A&E) at the local hospital.

This leads to a) better health care for many b) cheaper health care and c) fewer people arriving at hospitals without insurance whose costs eventually get passed on to everyone else - raising the costs of health insurance for those that do have it. With personal freedom goes collective responsibility.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Bit over the top there ? Actually it more a combination of a failing economy and disillusion over the Congressional Democrats loss of their own base as a result of the failure to push through the health care change than people had voted for. Obama's mistake was seeking bipartisan support that clearly was not there and failing to play tough with Joe Lieberman.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well that's how the constitution is structured for better or worse ! It is interesting to see how much has been achieved despite Republican obstruction ... still a new nuclear reduction agreement with Russia, reform of the MMS, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", are not the actions of a lame duck president. Given the Republican candidates so far I think Obama is probably quietly confident.

Kucinich might try to run against him in a primary but it would be a token protest effort and is unlikely to get the support to force a primary.

SharpshooterTom

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think that's fair at all. People seem to have awfully short memories- with his Health Care bill, he introduced the most socially far-reaching legislation since the Johnson administration.

His health care bill didn't go far enough, with 6 out of 10 americans supporting the public option, many argued with his majorities he could (and should) have done a lot more. I mean his healthcare bill certainly didn't rally his base, Jon Stewart called it "timid", Michael Moore called it "a joke". I think his healthcare bill could have been a lot better.

Cenk uygur sums Obama up perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_U4lRkLHko

matthew8

Gnobe wrote: »

His health care bill didn't go far enough, with 6 out of 10 americans supporting the public option, many argued with his majorities he could (and should) have done a lot more. I mean his healthcare bill certainly didn't rally his base, Jon Stewart called it "timid", Michael Moore called it "a joke". I think his healthcare bill could have been a lot better.

Cenk uygur sums Obama up perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_U4lRkLHko

Hear hear, there was no change despite 2 years with congress 60 senators +Susan Collins +Olympia Snowe +Joe Lieberman who all would work with him as well as McCain who promised in his gracious defeat speech to work with him... if only Kucinich was black and could give good speeches, though I doubt he'd propose a national healthcare plan, rather let the states decide.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

Hear hear, there was no change despite 2 years with congress 60 senators +Susan Collins +Olympia Snowe +Joe Lieberman who all would work with him as well as McCain who promised in his gracious defeat speech to work with him... if only Kucinich was black and could give good speeches, though I doubt he'd propose a national healthcare plan, rather let the states decide.

The vote for the bill passed by a vote from all 59 Democrats, and 1 Independent. No Republican voted for the bill. But this was only just enough for Cloture, and the ability to defeat a republican Filibuster, something they were extremely fond of doing.

McCain filed his own share of Filibusters I might add. Mostly against repealing don't ask don't tell. He has voted for over 200 filibusters in the senate, out of over 500 that he was present for.

http://killfil.com/senators/john-mccain-az/

FISMA

He is still the President and commander in Chief, not a pathetic loser as you stated.

Even if you disagree with his politics, show him some respect.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

The vote for the bill passed by a vote from all 59 Democrats, and 1 Independent. No Republican voted for the bill. But this was only just enough for Cloture, and the ability to defeat a republican Filibuster, something they were extremely fond of doing.

McCain filed his own share of Filibusters I might add. Mostly against repealing don't ask don't tell. He has voted for over 200 filibusters in the senate, out of over 500 that he was present for.

http://killfil.com/senators/john-mccain-az/

The 1 independent who voted for it was far left, it was in effect having 60 democrats in the senate.

RichieC

Einhard wrote: »

Also, the slaveholders of the south were primarily Whigs and Democrats, whilst Lincoln was Republican. I don't see how the Tea Party can legitimately equated with the old slaveholding ascendancy.

The Southern strategy swapped all that around, though.

Bozacke

I partially agree, Obama has compromised way too much!! His healthcare bill was a major success, but it didn't go far enough because of compromises, he compromised with the Republicans when he extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich and now he has once again caved in to the lunatic fringe of the far right, where the budget is only going to reduce spending and not make any of the necessary tax increases. Yes, a President should cater to all the people, but Bush never did, he only did what he wanted to do, right or wrong and he was nearly always wrong. When anyone who opposed Bush spoke up, they were called un-American and terrorists, but the same people freely criticise Obama and even when Obama compromises to their requests, it still isn't enough. Almost all of the current economic problems in America and many in the world today are rooted in the Bush administration, tax cuts, non-regulated financial institutions and free spending to fight two wars, but despite that, Obama is being blamed for it all. Obama is being blamed for way too many things that he didn't create and are out of his control. A president should only compromise with the other side if they too are making amends, but if the opposition doesn't budge as is the case, Obama should hold his ground and properly point the blame where it belongs. People said he wasn't strong enough referring to the military side, but he got Bin Laden - something Bush couldn't do, but he has proven weak, but on the political side. He should have been willing to let the country default, but then also clearly point to the non-compromising Republicans and tea-party nuts who weren't willing to compromise.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

The 1 independent who voted for it was far left, it was in effect having 60 democrats in the senate.

No it was having 59 Democrats and 1 Independent. That's the point of being Independent. Bernie Sanders I grant you leans to the extreme left but Lieberman if you look at his voting record is actually the definition of a centrist. Neither of those things makes them a Democrat.

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders.htm

Let's not go around labeling people though. Especially independents as Democrats, or in the GOP how some people like to label others RINOs because they don't vote agree with the party line on whatever issue that crops up.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

No it was having 59 Democrats and 1 Independent. That's the point of being Independent. Bernie Sanders I grant you leans to the extreme left but Lieberman if you look at his voting record is actually the definition of a centrist. Neither of those things makes them a Democrat.

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders.htm

Let's not go around labeling people though. Especially independents as Democrats, or in the GOP how some people like to label others RINOs because they don't vote agree with the party line on whatever issue that crops up.

To be fair on the RINO point Collins, Brown and Snowe are more popular in among democrats than republicans.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

To be fair on the RINO point Collins, Brown and Snowe are more popular in among democrats than republicans.

Which is why exactly? I am really not read up on the inter-minglings of congress. I can only guess it's because they're approachable, bi-partisan gentlemen?

SharpshooterTom

FISMA wrote: »

He is still the President and commander in Chief, not a pathetic loser as you stated.

Even if you disagree with his politics, show him some respect.

What like Bush got?

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

Which is why exactly? I am really not read up on the inter-minglings of congress. I can only guess it's because they're approachable, bi-partisan gentlemen?

Actually 2 of them are women.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

Actually 2 of them are women.

See? Not read up.