Barack Obama-so far..

astrofool

Guantanimo is on the way to being closed, and troops have a time schedule for pulling out of Iraq, insuring it doesn't turn into a blood bath on the way out. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly said that Afghanistan was the problem, and he would concentrate the military there.

I don't see him having broken any pledges, just taking longer to get there, but what did people really expect given the republicans intransigence to anything.

nesf

trapsagenius wrote: »

Agreed.Americans seem to think any sort of liberalism or socialism is only one step away from communism.For example, if someone tried to introduce Obama's policies to Ireland, they'd hardly be labelled 'hard left', would they?

American hard left is practically slightly left of centre in European terms if even that far. Any comments I make on the left/right in a thread about Obama are in American terms not European. The "centre voter" in American Politics is a fair bit to the right of FG in this country.

Pocono Joe

I think Barack Obama is doing a bang up job. An A++ in my opinion on the economy, jobs, healthcare, transparency, bipartisanship, and his new puppy.
(I've also discovered a post-op self regluating morphine drip button to be man's newest best friend).

GuanYin

To be perfectly fair, there is very little he could accomplish in a year with the state of the US and fiscal problems he inherited.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have preferred McCain (without Palin) but the truth is, Obama has succeeded in raising goodwill towards the US on the international front, which is more important than the US public realize (especially the way world economic power is shifting).

If anything has been exposed, it is how naive and inexperienced he really is (something McCain's campaign highlighted). Like all politicians, it's easy to make promises and plans on ideals, it's very different to do so when you have the CIA projection dossiers in front of you.

I think the real take will be in a year from now.

LostinKildare

nesf wrote: »

It should also be noted that there hasn't been any real effort at bipartisian effort with this bill. The Democrats are pushing for a Democrat only bill and the riders etc reflect this. Giving some centrist reforms to moderate Republicans could have allowed the Democrats to be able to give less ground to the more heavily left wing of the Democratic party.

People often forget just how complex the make-up of Democrats and Republicans are and how much crossover there is in the centre between both parties in terms of politicians. Obama promised to rule from the centre not the hard left, which was much of his appeal, but so far he's left the hard left of his party have their way which is what's gotten independents so much against this Health Bill and why the Mass. seat was lost. Independents voted 4:1 against the Democrats, that says something about the attitudes of the non-aligned which are crucial in elections etc.

kev9100 wrote: »

How can you possibly say that Obama has governed from the hard left? On almost every single issue he has compromised and all in the name of "Bipartisanship". Hopefully after the massachusetts debacle he will realise that he has to forget about the Republicans and just get some things done.

I'm with kev9100. The charge that Obama's governed from the hard left is ridiculous. The Left has so far gotten NOTHING that they want.

In terms of the healthcare bill, the Left wanted a single-payer system, which was taken off the table before negotiations even began. They grudgingly settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion. Instead they're expected to gratefully accept a bill that requires everyone to buy insurance in a big crappy giveaway to the private insurance industry. Obama abandoned his commitment to drug reimportation and his promise to conduct negotiations in public -- both promises to his leftist base. So, pray tell, where exactly did Obama hand healthcare over to the Left?

And besides healthcare, where has Obama "let the hard left have its way"?

* Larger stimulus recommended by left-leaning economists? NO
* Genuine reform of financial industry? NO
* Nationalization of banks? NO
* Programs to help homeowners with foreclosures? NO
* Withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq? NO
* Reversal of policies of indefinite detention, military commissions and state secrets, and closure of Guantanamo in Obama's first year? NO
* Prosecutions of Bush, Cheney et al for war crimes? NO
* Immigration amnesty? NO
* Repeal of DADT and DOMA? NO

Yes the US has a Left, but it hasn't got any real power. It does serve as a convenient whipping boy for both parties -- remember during the Bush years that the Left was blamed for not supporting the Republican administration in the faltering war in Iraq (unpatriotic!), now blamed for not supporting the Democratic administration in its timid wishywashy coffee klatsch with corporatist interests (within and without both parties). Funny how they don't get credit for standing up for their principles.

Sure, Left voters are never gonna support Republican candidates, but they're not going to come out and work for and vote for Democrats either if they're completely demoralized.

Overheal

LostinKildare wrote: »

I'm with kev9100. The charge that Obama's governed from the hard left is ridiculous. The Left has so far gotten NOTHING that they want.

In terms of the healthcare bill, the Left wanted a single-payer system, which was taken off the table before negotiations even began. They grudgingly settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion. Instead they're expected to gratefully accept a bill that requires everyone to buy insurance in a big crappy giveaway to the private insurance industry. Obama abandoned his commitment to drug reimportation and his promise to conduct negotiations in public -- both promises to his leftist base. So, pray tell, where exactly did Obama hand healthcare over to the Left?

And besides healthcare, where has Obama "let the hard left have its way"?

* Larger stimulus recommended by left-leaning economists? NO
* Genuine reform of financial industry? NO
* Nationalization of banks? NO
* Programs to help homeowners with foreclosures? NO
* Withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq? NO
* Reversal of policies of indefinite detention, military commissions and state secrets, and closure of Guantanamo in Obama's first year? NO
* Prosecutions of Bush, Cheney et al for war crimes? NO
* Immigration amnesty? NO
* Repeal of DADT and DOMA? NO

Yes the US has a Left, but it hasn't got any real power. It does serve as a convenient whipping boy for both parties -- remember during the Bush years that the Left was blamed for not supporting the Republican administration in the faltering war in Iraq (unpatriotic!), now blamed for not supporting the Democratic administration in its timid wishywashy coffee klatsch with corporatist interests (within and without both parties). Funny how they don't get credit for standing up for their principles.

Sure, Left voters are never gonna support Republican candidates, but they're not going to come out and work for and vote for Democrats either if they're completely demoralized.

The Truth is Nobody has gotten Anything they Want. It doesnt matter where you feel like pointing the finger. The Left hasnt gotten anything; the Right hasnt gotten anything. Nothing has been passed, nothing has happened, and meanwhile ~10% of the working population is Unemployed and Looking.

I wouldn't mind either way at this point: Left, Right, Middle; just do Something.

LostinKildare

Please. I'm not pointing a finger, I'm disputing the assertion made above (thanked by you, among others) that Obama's "let the hard left have its way." If your thanks for the post was an agreement with its substance, well then offer some evidence that he's been governing from the Left. I don't see it.

And yes, some people have gotten what they wanted. Obviously. If you didn't want comprehensive healthcare reform, well you got what you wanted. If you didn't want war crimes prosecutions, you got what you wanted. If you wanted to maintain most parts of the Patriot Act, you got what you wanted. Etc., etc.

Manic Moran

Instead they're expected to gratefully accept a bill that requires everyone to buy insurance in a big crappy giveaway to the private insurance industry.

Even at that, there's some dispute if they're really looking to fight the right fire.

Most of the voters were complaining about healthcare costs being too high. They wanted actions which would reduce the costs of healthcare, make it more affordable again.

They were not so worried about universal coverage and making sure every last Tom, Dick and Harry had some medical insurance program. Instead of focusing on what the voters wanted, the reform in pretty much all of its variants have attempted to solve an entirely different problem.

That probably won't help them in the polls next election either.

You can't blame Obama as much as you can the Democratic Party as a whole. They have had a huge majority for the last year, and utterly squandered it thus far. They've got about six months to make a difference.

NTM

walshb

I think he's doing fantastic, c'mon, a Nobel Peace Prize?

Manic Moran

As an additional point, his State of the Union speech is tomorrow, if I recall correctly.

I will be interested to hear how many times he talks about the 'situation [he] inherited.'

It's getting stale. Even when discussing the Scott Brown victory, he said "People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." So they voted for the candidate of the party in power for seven of the last eight years because they're angry at them? Yeah, right.

It wouldn't be so bad if he had actually managed to take actions to address the situation inherited. If he had at least tried and still not made headway, then there might be something to it. But, for example, 2/3 of the 'emergency stimulus bill' passed almost a year ago has yet to be spent. (Now, granted, if you objected to the spending in the first place, this is a good thing, but that wasn't the plan.) Whether he inherited it or not, the question a year later is "And what have you done about it?"

So far, the answer has been predominantly "Blame Bush"

NTM

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

As an additional point, his State of the Union speech is tomorrow, if I recall correctly.

I will be interested to hear how many times he talks about the 'situation [he] inherited.'

It's getting stale. Even when discussing the Scott Brown victory, he said "People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." So they voted for the candidate of the party in power for seven of the last eight years because they're angry at them? Yeah, right.

It wouldn't be so bad if he had actually managed to take actions to address the situation inherited. If he had at least tried and still not made headway, then there might be something to it. But, for example, 2/3 of the 'emergency stimulus bill' passed almost a year ago has yet to be spent. (Now, granted, if you objected to the spending in the first place, this is a good thing, but that wasn't the plan.) Whether he inherited it or not, the question a year later is "And what have you done about it?"

So far, the answer has been predominantly "Blame Bush"

NTM

I don't think the purpose of the stimulus bill was to blow a wad of money in a few months.

I'm an Obama supporter and TBH I've been very disappointed that he isn't Left enough. Overheal talks about "socialized medicine". But really those Senate and House Bills are a poor attempt. F the fillibuster, the Dems are so scared of the Republicans they fail to do anything meaningful in Congress. Now regarding the economy, if anyone expected the country to be cured of the recession after 12 months, they are smoking some good stuff. Anyone with a sane head on them knows it will take years for the US to turn around.

In any case, Obama and the Dems are doing a horrible job but still a better option than W/Cheney and McCain/Nutjob.

JohnMearsheimer

In fairness he has a big mess to clear up before he can really and truely push ahead with his agenda. I think the theme of change and success of his campaign left some people with expectations that are maybe too high and cloaked how divided America can be.

People had expectations Iraq/Afghanistan would end pretty soon. These things don't happen overnight. I'm really shocked at how Conservative Americans can actually be. Opposition to healthcare reform really hammered it home for me. The hype after his election would have had you believing everyone wanted to move in the same direction. Doesn't seem so.

Overheal

In any case, Obama and the Dems are doing a horrible job but still a better option than W/Cheney and McCain/Nutjob.

To be fair "Insnae McCain" wanted to Freeze Spending from the beginning. Something Obama is only wising up to 15 months later.

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

I don't think the purpose of the stimulus bill was to blow a wad of money in a few months.

It was if you were to listen to the politicians at the time. No time could be lost! The economy must be stimulated! The money isn't doing much stimulating whilst sitting in the Treasury's checking account.

I'm an Obama supporter and TBH I've been very disappointed that he isn't Left enough.

I'm really shocked at how Conservative Americans can actually be.

I think there's your answer. The Left might want Obama to be more Left, but Obama might want to get re-elected. And even if he doesn't, enough of the Democratic legislators who actually pass the laws seem to want to get re-elected that ideas from the further Left are a waste of time. Don't feel too bad: There are plenty enough Republicans who think that the solution to the problem of getting elected is to be even more conservative.

if anyone expected the country to be cured of the recession after 12 months, they are smoking some good stuff. Anyone with a sane head on them knows it will take years for the US to turn around.

This is why I said it wouldn't be so much of a problem for him to reference the situation he inherited if he had actually managed to even get anything much started. But he hasn't, really.

To be fair "Insnae McCain" wanted to Freeze Spending from the beginning. Something Obama is only wising up to 15 months later

There seem to have been quite a few instances of Obama moving to a McCainesque position since the election. This is probably a good thing: If, indeed, McCain was right, it means that Obama is not sufficiently detached from reality, or is not too proud, to do the right thing and change his position.

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

It was if you were to listen to the politicians at the time. No time could be lost! The economy must be stimulated! The money isn't doing much stimulating whilst sitting in the Treasury's checking account.

That's because most people probably used it to pay off credit card debt.

I think there's your answer. The Left might want Obama to be more Left, but Obama might want to get re-elected. And even if he doesn't, enough of the Democratic legislators who actually pass the laws seem to want to get re-elected that ideas from the further Left are a waste of time. Don't feel too bad: There are plenty enough Republicans who think that the solution to the problem of getting elected is to be even more conservative.

Indeed, that is a trend of almost all politicians. I maintain that if McCain had stuck to the more liberal republican values that made him a popular senator, he'd be sitting in the White House right now.

This is why I said it wouldn't be so much of a problem for him to reference the situation he inherited if he had actually managed to even get anything much started. But he hasn't, really.

No he hasn't. And I really don't buy the notion that "he's done as much as anyone could do". He has basically done as much as anyone could do without jeopardizing his political interests.

There seem to have been quite a few instances of Obama moving to a McCainesque position since the election. This is probably a good thing: If, indeed, McCain was right, it means that Obama is not sufficiently detached from reality, or is not too proud, to do the right thing and change his position.

Yes, agreed. The fact of the matter is, on a stand off on political merit, McCain was most likely the better candidate. Alas, political merit doesn't win elections. The GOP's interference and most notably Palin, coupled with the Democrat's far superior multimedia campaigning and the legacy of a certain GW Bush, all conspired against McCain. But Obama isn't a bad alternative (if he really can be considered an alternative considering I voted for him, but that was more out of misgivings on the GOP than anything else). and seems to be savvy enough to backtrack without looking bad.

The time to judge will be in about 12 months

Stephen_2010

GuanYin wrote: »

McCain was most likely the better candidate.

Cindy? You lost, get over it. Let's be honest, Johnny's only notable achievement in life was surrendering to the enemy. :rolleyes:

GuanYin

GuanYin wrote: »

But Obama isn't a bad alternative (if he really can be considered an alternative considering I voted for him

Stephen_2010 wrote: »

Cindy? You lost, get over it. Let's be honest, Johnny's only notable achievement in life was surrendering to the enemy. :rolleyes:

If you were interested in the subject and read my post, you'd see that I actually won, considering I voted for Obama.

Please read the forum rules and don't post such comments about political figures again.

JohnMc1

The concrete proof that Obama's chances of a second term are gone have now come to light.

Obama Girl is over her crush on him.

20Cent

I think he has been a bit weak. He's allowed the Republicans too much power reached out to them too much. He should just get on with it let them put up or shut up, get tough on the blue dogs as well.

Considering the hand he was dealt he's doing pretty well.

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

I think he has been a bit weak. He's allowed the Republicans too much power reached out to them too much. He should just get on with it let them put up or shut up, get tough on the blue dogs as well.

Considering the hand he was dealt he's doing pretty well.

No, he overextending himself to win. He made a lot of promises when he ran. Plenty of which have already fallen through. But one of them was Bipartisanship. If he begins stonewalling the Republican Party, that would not only spell an end to the Obama Administration, but to the House, the Senate, and the widespread Democrat Chances for election for the next 8 years.

Much for the same reason though, the Republicans already have seriously diminished credibility much in thanks to the Veto Administration of GWB.

20Cent

Overheal wrote: »

No, he overextending himself to win. He made a lot of promises when he ran. Plenty of which have already fallen through. But one of them was Bipartisanship. If he begins stonewalling the Republican Party, that would not only spell an end to the Obama Administration, but to the House, the Senate, and the widespread Democrat Chances for election for the next 8 years.

Much for the same reason though, the Republicans already have seriously diminished credibility much in thanks to the Veto Administration of GWB.

It looks like he bent over backwards for bipartisanship and got nothing from the Republicans. Republican leaders are calling him a socialist, a granny killer etc. don't know how he's supposed to negotiate with them. Trying to please everyone ends in no one getting what they want.
Don't think he should stonewall them just give them enough rope.

axer

I must say he told the republicans as it is the other day at that address to the GOP. He really needs to push his babies e.g. healthcare reform through and let the republicans philabuster them as it will only make them look like fools. A philabuster cannot last forever.

JohnMc1

axer wrote: »

I must say he told the republicans as it is the other day at that address to the GOP. He really needs to push his babies e.g. healthcare reform through and let the republicans philabuster them as it will only make them look like fools. A philabuster cannot last forever.

Obama needs to put the Healthcare stuff to rest and focus on getting Americans back to work. That should should have been his first priority since he took office this time last year. If he gets a second term and America is recovering then discuss Healthcare reform [with that honesty, transparency and bipartisanship that he promised as Candidate Obama]

And for God's sake knock off with the Republicans are blocking everything bull****. For a whole year the Democrats had a fillabuster proof majority. Anything they couldn't get through during that time is their own fault because their own didn't want to vote for it because they wanted to keep their positions.

kev9100

JohnMc1 wrote: »

And for God's sake knock off with the Republicans are blocking everything bull****.

The Republicans aren't obstructionists you say? Well, let me introduce you to this Republican Senator from the great state of Alabama.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/coa_20100205_3373.php


A real class act, as I'm sure you will agree.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

The Republicans aren't obstructionists you say? Well, let me introduce you to this Republican Senator from the great state of Alabama.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/coa_20100205_3373.php


A real class act..

I never said they weren't but its ridiculous to stand here and type with a straight face that after a year of having a fillabuster proof majority that the reason the Democrats aren't getting anything through is because the Republicans are fillabustering a fillabuster proof majority is absolutely absurd. Let's face it you would be laughing at me if the tables were reversed and I was saying the Democrats were being obstructionists and fillabustering a fillabuster proof majority.

kev9100

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its ridiculous to stand here and type with a straight face that after a year of having a fillabuster proof majority that the reason the Democrats aren't getting anything through is because the Republicans are fillabustering a fillabuster proof majority is absolutely absurd.

Personally, I don't see how it's ridiculous at all. The Dems had/have an incredibly divided caucus and were always going to need Republican votes to pass some legislation. But even when the legislation almost exactly matched Republican proposals, the vast majority of Republicans said no.

For example, one third of the Stimulus was tax-cuts, and yet the Republicans still opposed it. When was the last time Republicans opposed a tax cut? If Reagan or Bush had proposed those tax-cuts, I'm willing to bet the Republican response would have be alot different.


P.S Welcome back:).

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

Personally, I don't see how it's ridiculous at all. The Dems had/have an incredibly divided caucus and were always going to need Republican votes to pass some legislation. But even when the legislation almost exactly matched Republican proposals, the vast majority of Republicans said no.

For example, one third of the Stimulus was tax-cuts, and yet the Republicans still opposed it. When was the last time Republicans opposed a tax cut? If Reagan or Bush had proposed those tax-cuts, I'm willing to bet the Republican response would have be alot different.

The way I look at is this. If someone said they wanted to work with you on a project You show up and they slam the door in your face. Would you still want to work with them [when there is also a high probability that you're going to be the one that gets the blame if things go wrong] ? I wouldn't. Any rationale human being wouldn't want to put themselves in that position.

P.S Welcome back:).

Thanks.

kev9100

When have the Dems slammed the door in the Republicans's faces?

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

When have the Dems slammed the door in the Republicans's faces?

This whole "bipartisan" effort which is just the Democrats in the middle of the night.

the_syco

Overheal wrote: »

A year ago yesterday, he promised Gitmo would be closed.

He found out that the terrorists in Gitmo were terrorists that wanted to do harm to the USA, and had to get rid of his hippy theories.

Overheal wrote: »

Middle East withdrawal? Surge 2.0, 30,000 additional troops.

Withdrawal from ME will never happen. Maybe a withdrawal from Iraq, but they'll stay in Afgan I'd say.