The Left Vs Obama

[GuyFawkes38]

The left is pissed. Interesting opinion article from the NYtimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=1

Here's an important section:


The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election. Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in “Dreams From My Father” appended a chapter at the end that wasn’t there — the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.

Or perhaps, like so many politicians who come to Washington, he has already been consciously or unconsciously corrupted by a system that tests the souls even of people of tremendous integrity, by forcing them to dial for dollars — in the case of the modern presidency, for hundreds of millions of dollars. When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. Whether that reflects his aversion to conflict, an aversion to conflict with potential campaign donors that today cripples both parties’ ability to govern and threatens our democracy, or both, is unclear.

A final explanation is that he ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue. He has pursued the one with which he is most comfortable given the constraints of his character, consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation.

It increasingly sounds like Obama is a psychologically fragile guy (that was my impression after reading "Dreams from my Father"). Obama's father was a depressed alcoholic. Obama, himself, has had issues with depression.

To keep his sanity, he stays measured and within himself. He can't psychologically bring himself to take political risks. Congressional liberals had to force Obama to take up the health care issue. It was more of an accomplishment for Nancy Pelosi than Obama.

Obama's major demand from his staff is "No drama". It seems like he just can't handle it.

There's a lot of truth to this Onion video:

http://www.theonion.com/video/white-house-reveals-obama-is-bipolar-has-entered-d,14360/

[smileyy]

I don't buy the armchair psychology. Obama isn't failing to enact policy. Rather, he's enacting the policies he wants, while managing at every step to deflect blame elsewhere. Except he's not as good of a Teflon President as Ronald Reagan was.

Instead, Obama is simply an arm of the Wealthy and Powerful Establishment Party that is the single party in American politics today. Sure, they have their family squabbles, but at the end of the day, the rich get grossly richer, the proles get bombed, have their jobs slashed, have their every moved surveilled until were all living in 1984.

[GuyFawkes38]

Maybe the armchair psychology is off. Maybe it's the the job of the presidency, itself. Clinton moved quickly to the center after a couple years in office.

I think it goes beyond the debt limit. Obama was a staunch war critic. But as president, he heavily escalated America's presence in Afghanistan and had no issue committing US troops to the Libya operation.

[spazzrico]

I don't know which if any of those views I would ascribe to. I don't know if it is all his personality flaws, an opposition party that has from the very first day worked its tail off to ensure that absolutely anything he does is lambasted, or that he tries too hard to compromise when he should just enact his policy and stick to his guns. Why try to compromise with a party that has no interest in compromise. You just give up your ground in the name of compromise only for them to draw a line in the sand and call you a socialist anyway (despite the contrary reality).

Overall I'm pretty disappointed with his term. I can't place all the blame on him, but I do put some of it on him. He just doesn't seem to be a very good political strategist to me.

I wish I could peak into an alternate universe to see what things would be like if Hillary had gotten elected. I'm sure opposition to anything she said or did would be just as strong (trade some racist overtones in certain sectors for sexist ones), but the leadership they provide would most likely be qualitatively different.

I think in the final analysis I have to agree with Smiley. What else can we expect from a political economic system that has consistently and increasingly polarized the wealthy and not wealthy in the past three or four decades?

[smileyy]

The Clintons are members of that Wealthy Powerful party too. The country just hadn't been herded into that mindset quite as much during the Clinton years.

It was also harder to explain why we were always at war with Oceania (or was it Eastasia) in the middle of that Pax Americana. Thank goodness now we have terrorists on every front!

[bobbiemcgee]

Left/Right? 62% say dump everybody:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11210636/1/americans-say-dump-entire-congress-poll.html

[Snipe]

I don't know which if any of those views I would ascribe to. I don't know if it is all his personality flaws, an opposition party that has from the very first day worked its tail off to ensure that absolutely anything he does is lambasted, or that he tries too hard to compromise when he should just enact his policy and stick to his guns. Why try to compromise with a party that has no interest in compromise. You just give up your ground in the name of compromise only for them to draw a line in the sand and call you a socialist anyway (despite the contrary reality).

Overall I'm pretty disappointed with his term. I can't place all the blame on him, but I do put some of it on him. He just doesn't seem to be a very good political strategist to me.

I wish I could peak into an alternate universe to see what things would be like if Hillary had gotten elected. I'm sure opposition to anything she said or did would be just as strong (trade some racist overtones in certain sectors for sexist ones), but the leadership they provide would most likely be qualitatively different.

I think in the final analysis I have to agree with Smiley. What else can we expect from a political economic system that has consistently and increasingly polarized the wealthy and not wealthy in the past three or four decades?


I am a registered Democrat and I proudly voted for Hillary Clinton. I also encouraged others to do so. I think that I was right.

The real election was in the primaries last time out, and I was a huge Clinton backer. I think we would have been much better off today with her in office. I think the campaign against her was explicitly sexist and the media was biased toward Obama. Now some people are starting to question their assumptions. Only now it occurs to some people that he wasn't actually qualified to be President. Shocking! It is hilarious to see people start to see the media bias that surrounded "The One".

Hillary would have been a better President than both Obama and John McCain. She actually got more votes in the Democratic primaries, and mine was one of them. He used his political organization and ties with Acorn to manipulate the caucus states, but she got more raw votes. It is sad. He knows everything about how to get elected, but very little about how to actually do the job and govern. He is a pathetic failure and everyone can see it now. Hillary was right.

Who do you want to take that 3 AM call? Not Barack Obama. He wouldn't have time for his teleprompter. I wouldn't have wished this mess on any of our 57 states.

Don't blame me, I actually voted for Hillary. Loud and Proud. I can only hope she runs again to end this mess.

[GoMuskies]

The WSJ had an editorial this morning wondering if Obama just really isn't very bright. I have a hard time believing you get to be editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review without being really damned smart, but what do I know?

[XU 87]

I'm not going to comment on the psychology stuff, but the article is correct that he didn't have the background or experience to be President. The guy was a great campaigner and gave good speeches. Other than showing the ability to campaign well and win elections, what exactly had he accomplished either in the private or public sector prior to becoming President? Was he ever a leader or sponsored any important legislation while in the Illinois Senate or the U.S. Senate?

On top of that, Obama is essentially a left wing, big government guy. He either doesn't understand or doesn't trust the private sector. On MSNBC this morning, Scarborough said that business leaders don't want to meet with him anymore because they view it as a complete waste of time. Business leaders complain that all he does is preach to them and then tell them they need to "hire more people". Scarborough's liberal co-hosts all agreed wth Scarborough's assesment.

Scarborough also mentioned a few weeks ago that democratic leaders complain that Obama doesn't lead but just sits back and waits for others to lead (See Healthcare). His story was again confirmed by his co-host, who was the person who had actually talked to a bunch of democratic leaders.

In short, as President, Obama is a naif- naive and incompetent. On top of that, he's not a leader. And that is a dangerous combination.

[DC Muskie]

I'm interested in what people want in their president. Do they want a long track record of being in Washington, either as a Senator or Congressman, or as Vice President or cabinet member? Do we want someone who has business experience, or military service? Do you want someone who was related to a former president, or someone who has been a mayor or a governor? How long should they have been in any of these positions? Are we trying to reach perfection?

Who would want the job in the first place? The only time people like you is when you are out of office and even more so when you are dead. That is not especially appealing. By the time you get around to your last few years if you won reelection, everyone feels a little tired of everything you have done, or what you haven't done.

We are a country that prides itself in freedom. Yet we hate our government. The only time we like everything is when an outside force threatens us. Who are we sending into our government to serve us in our best interests.

Debate is good. Compromise is good. Progress is good and restraint is good.

We are in an age where we get news updates every second. We can get people's thoughts at precise moments by the click of a few buttons.

I think the argument that Obama didn't have the experience to be president is obsolete. I know there will be many who disagree with that assessment. The man has been president for over two years now. I don't believe there is anything that can prepare you for all the aspects of the job.

I have to say, I'm getting a little tired of hearing how constrained and annoyed "business leaders" are. Is Obama incompetent because he extended tax cuts to people, or is he incompetent because people attach a health care system to his name, then say he didn't do anything to shepherd that system through the legislative process? We loosened regulation and then the private sector made bad decisions and then we complain that government needed to step in. Or not at all.

I always hated when Bush would get up to the podium and tell us how hard the job is. I really hate it when Obama gets up there and compares Congress to his children.

No one is happy now. But sometimes I feel we will never be happy. Two years later we are still talking about what experience the president has. We have high unemployment, we think taxes are too high, businesses can't create jobs, it's too hot, too many of us don't use our turn signals properly, kids de-commit from scholarships too often.

When we look in 2012, who do we turn to? The president? A governor who seems to be running away from his record? Another one who thinks Jesus can only save us? Another one who was a former lobbyist and attorney general?

We want perfection, then complain when these people are far from perfect. Then we look for people to justify our thinking and nod accordingly when we do.

[XUglow]

The WSJ had an editorial this morning wondering if Obama just really isn't very bright. I have a hard time believing you get to be editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review without being really damned smart, but what do I know?

We had a lot of guys at Berkeley that were really, really smart. Some of them could translate those brains to the real world. Some of them could not. Of the ones that went to the real world, some of them were capable of running an organization and some of them were not. Of the ones that could run an organization, some of them did it well and some of them didn't.

To me the WSJ article is missing the mark. Obama is obviously very smart. He seems to have a difficult time converting good ideas to sound policy decisions.

[DC Muskie]

We had a lot of guys at Berkeley that were really, really smart. Some of them could translate those brains to the real world. Some of them could not. Of the ones that went to the real world, some of them were capable of running an organization and some of them were not. Of the ones that could run an organization, some of them did it well and some of them didn't.

To me the WSJ article is missing the mark. Obama is obviously very smart. He seems to have a difficult time converting good ideas to sound policy decisions.

I'm sorry to bring this up....but we heard from many people that in fact our first MBA president was smart...because he had an MBA.

And yet at the end of his term, the country nose dived into a recession.

[Porkopolis]

I'm sorry to bring this up....but we heard from many people that in fact our first MBA president was smart...because he had an MBA.

And yet at the end of his term, the country nose dived into a recession.

I think it is much the same issue. I was as big of a Bush hater as you could find but never for a second bought the "Bush is stupid" BS. Both Bush and Obama are very intelligent men, both seem to have trouble translating that intelligence to sound policy decisions.

[DC Muskie]

I think it is much the same issue. I was as big of a Bush hater as you could find but never for a second bought the "Bush is stupid" BS. Both Bush and Obama are very intelligent men, both seem to have trouble translating that intelligence to sound policy decisions.

In full disclosure, I always thought Bush was in fact stupid. I always thought he got where he got, because his name was George Bush.

Always liked his Dad. I actually like JEB. George? Not so much.

[XU 87]

I'm interested in what people want in their president.

Personally, I want a fiscal conservative who has shown some past accomplishments, either in the private or public sector. And I want to someone who has some guts- who has some courage to do things which may not be politically popular (like cutting entitlements) but which make economic and long term sense.

I also want someone who can effectively communicate why the country needs to do one policy over another.

[Porkopolis]

Personally, I want a fiscal conservative who has shown some past accomplishments, either in the private or public sector. And I want to someone who has some guts- who has some courage to do things which may not be politically popular but make economic and long term sense.

I also want someone who can effectively communicate why the country needs to do one policy over another.

So what you want, in fact, is Bill Clinton. ;)

[paulxu]

Personally, I want a fiscal conservative who has shown some past accomplishments, either in the private or public sector. And I want to someone who has some guts- who has some courage to do things which may not be politically popular (like cutting entitlements) but which make economic and long term sense.

I also want someone who can effectively communicate why the country needs to do one policy over another.

That sounds like you want Bill Clinton to run again.

[paulxu]

So what you want, in fact, is Bill Clinton. ;)

OK, I was one minute late.

[paulxu]

I just got the most interesting message. I tried to send the message above about being a minute late...and it said "this forum requires you to wait for 30 seconds before re-posting; you have 4 seconds left" or something like that.

Must be a Waggy/Amex waiting period to keep me from shooting back too quick at something.

[nuts4xu]

I know this might not be exactly what this thread is talking about....

But it is critical to guard OBama going to his left. He is left handed and shoots with this left, and I have yet to see him go to his right. It is like his right is doing nothing to help his cause. Here are a few clips of his terrible moves.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lai3dx260Q0/TPClWDICdDI/AAAAAAAAAsA/vX5OQUppb9U/s1600/obama-basketball.gif

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/17/obama_basketball.jpg

[XU 87]

That sounds like you want Bill Clinton to run again.

I should have added, "And I want someone who will not be requesting sexual favors from young interns in the Oval Office."

[Snipe]

I don't know what "we" want. I know what I want. I want: Chris Christie.

I actually want a lot more than that, but Chris Christie is the best option that we have. We need to stop the spending before we do anything else. By every account it is out of control. I don't care if we raise or lower taxes, I just want someone to stop the spending. I don't think anyone can do this, and that is why I think the whole thing will fall down.

I also want a country that has the courage and pride to defend it's own borders and culture, and enforce it's own laws. We are Americans. We get to decide who gets to be an American and who doesn't. That is our right as Americans. We need to stop the third world horde invasion. 75% of first generation Mexicans are on Welfare and we are already bankrupt as a country. I really think that we don't need any more Mexicans, and I want someone to both say it and then enforce it. People know this, but they would be afraid to even mouth the words. Enough is enough.

We talk about the gap with rich and poor, but how is that solved by importing millions of Mexicans and putting them on our welfare rolls? I would put guns on the border. I would recall our military for our expensive wars and put them on the border. I would have predator drones and land mines on the border, and I would shoot every son of a bitch that wanted to sneak in. After the first few weeks I think the invasion would stop. Once you show them you are a serious player, they would take you seriously. We don't have a serious policy now.

Chris Christie won't do that, but he would make the tough decisions. I think that he is different than other politicians in that he talks the talk and then actually walks the walk. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but I respect the fact that he is a serious player and takes critical and divisible issues and hits them head on without any apologies. We are all going to take a hit, and it isn't going to be pretty and it is going to be painful, especially at the outset. Christie doesn't sugar coat any of that. He speaks his mind. He is an honest broker. He is a politician that doesn't make you want to wear boots because the bullshyt is so deep.

He isn't always right either. But he is an honest man with a rational outlook and a plan. He plans his work and he works his plan. He is explicit about what needs to be done. The youtube's I have seen him in are extraordinary. If anyone has no clue who he is or what he is like, go to youtube and search for Chris Christie.

At one point in my life I loved Ross Perot as our last best chance. He may have been bat shit crazy but he was right. The little man with his charts and graphs...how did that work out? What about his predictions with those charts and graphs? I think Ross had a point and we are all feeling it now. Had he been elected things could have been different.

I can't see any person making a difference outside of Chris Christie. Right now if I had to choose from all the candidates for President I would choose Tim Pawlenty. I certainly wouldn't want more of Obama. We have been there and done that. I agree that the experience thing means nothing now, because he has experience and he has been a terrible president for all 57 states.

Obama is seeking to raise 1 billion dollars for his next campaign. Most of that money will probably come from Jews, even though they constitute 2% of our population. They like those open borders, and they fight to keep them open. It is important to them.

Obama has no real accomplishment to tout in his next campaign. He won't be running on his record. People don't like his record. The only thing he ever did run on was hope and change. He can't run on change again, because he is the incumbent. So what will he spend his billion dollars on?

He will spend his billion on character assassination. If you run for President and you are not Obama expect to have a billion dollars spent against you making the case that you are a radical degenerate and unfit for office. Why do people like Mitch Daniels decline to run? Because their whole family will be torn apart. This will all happen and our liberal media will be a willing accomplice.

Look at how they treated Sarah Palin's family. Sarah Palin wasn't fit to be President. She had more experience than Obama, but that is a weak argument. Even the New York Times in this thread admits that Obama never had any real accomplishments before he became President. Everyone else already knew that, and we see how that tuned out.

Mitch Daniels knew that. His wife abandoned him and his children and they divorced. They then remarried and now have a good life. People wanted him to run, but he talked to his family and they came to the conclusion, which was NO! Why? He would have been destroyed. His wife and kids were an obvious target. They would have spent a billion dollars to show that this successful man was really a radical and a bad man. Obama doesn't have anything else to run on. In his life he doesn't have a lot of accomplishment. He does know how to run a campaign though, and he will destroy whoever challenges him.

[GoMuskies]

I want a President who doesn't play basketball in sweatpants. What a goober.

[Emp]

I don't know what "we" want. I know what I want. I want: Chris Christie.

I actually want a lot more than that, but Chris Christie is the best option that we have. We need to stop the spending before we do anything else. By every account it is out of control. I don't care if we raise or lower taxes, I just want someone to stop the spending. I don't think anyone can do this, and that is why I think the whole thing will fall down.

I also want a country that has the courage and pride to defend it's own borders and culture, and enforce it's own laws. We are Americans. We get to decide who gets to be an American and who doesn't. That is our right as Americans. We need to stop the third world horde invasion. 75% of first generation Mexicans are on Welfare and we are already bankrupt as a country. I really think that we don't need any more Mexicans, and I want someone to both say it and then enforce it. People know this, but they would be afraid to even mouth the words. Enough is enough.

We talk about the gap with rich and poor, but how is that solved by importing millions of Mexicans and putting them on our welfare rolls? I would put guns on the border. I would recall our military for our expensive wars and put them on the border. I would have predator drones and land mines on the border, and I would shoot every son of a bitch that wanted to sneak in. After the first few weeks I think the invasion would stop. Once you show them you are a serious player, they would take you seriously. We don't have a serious policy now.

Chris Christie won't do that, but he would make the tough decisions. I think that he is different than other politicians in that he talks the talk and then actually walks the walk. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but I respect the fact that he is a serious player and takes critical and divisible issues and hits them head on without any apologies. We are all going to take a hit, and it isn't going to be pretty and it is going to be painful, especially at the outset. Christie doesn't sugar coat any of that. He speaks his mind. He is an honest broker. He is a politician that doesn't make you want to wear boots because the bullshyt is so deep.

He isn't always right either. But he is an honest man with a rational outlook and a plan. He plans his work and he works his plan. He is explicit about what needs to be done. The youtube's I have seen him in are extraordinary. If anyone has no clue who he is or what he is like, go to youtube and search for Chris Christie.

At one point in my life I loved Ross Perot as our last best chance. He may have been bat shit crazy but he was right. The little man with his charts and graphs...how did that work out? What about his predictions with those charts and graphs? I think Ross had a point and we are all feeling it now. Had he been elected things could have been different.

I can't see any person making a difference outside of Chris Christie. Right now if I had to choose from all the candidates for President I would choose Tim Pawlenty. I certainly wouldn't want more of Obama. We have been there and done that. I agree that the experience thing means nothing now, because he has experience and he has been a terrible president for all 57 states.

Obama is seeking to raise 1 billion dollars for his next campaign. Most of that money will probably come from Jews, even though they constitute 2% of our population. They like those open borders, and they fight to keep them open. It is important to them.

Obama has no real accomplishment to tout in his next campaign. He won't be running on his record. People don't like his record. The only thing he ever did run on was hope and change. He can't run on change again, because he is the incumbent. So what will he spend his billion dollars on?

He will spend his billion on character assassination. If you run for President and you are not Obama expect to have a billion dollars spent against you making the case that you are a radical degenerate and unfit for office. Why do people like Mitch Daniels decline to run? Because their whole family will be torn apart. This will all happen and our liberal media will be a willing accomplice.

Look at how they treated Sarah Palin's family. Sarah Palin wasn't fit to be President. She had more experience than Obama, but that is a weak argument. Even the New York Times in this thread admits that Obama never had any real accomplishments before he became President. Everyone else already knew that, and we see how that tuned out.

Mitch Daniels knew that. His wife abandoned him and his children and they divorced. They then remarried and now have a good life. People wanted him to run, but he talked to his family and they came to the conclusion, which was NO! Why? He would have been destroyed. His wife and kids were an obvious target. They would have spent a billion dollars to show that this successful man was really a radical and a bad man. Obama doesn't have anything else to run on. In his life he doesn't have a lot of accomplishment. He does know how to run a campaign though, and he will destroy whoever challenges him.

Worth saving on so many levels. Jews. Mexicans. "Them." Cull em all. The Master Race needs to fortify Fortress America.

[smileyy]

I should have added, "And I want someone who will not be requesting sexual favors from young interns in the Oval Office."

Why?

I'd prefer a president who gets his rocks off via an intern, rather than one who needs $1T in wars, torture and illegal surveillance to do the same thing.

[chico]

Why?

I'd prefer a president who gets his rocks off via an intern, rather than one who needs $1T in wars, torture and illegal surveillance to do the same thing.

How about one that does neither, and still does what 87 suggested.

[DC Muskie]

So Snipe wants the former lobbyist who is unpopular in his own state where he has been governor for less than two years.

We are totally screwed.

[Kahns Krazy]

I should have added, "And I want someone who will not be requesting sexual favors from young interns in the Oval Office."

I want a single guy in office that will start out most press conferences giving highlights from his last 3-way with twins, and how awesome it is to be president, then get on to the business of the day.

I have no problem with the president getting a hum job in the oval office. I think that should be one of the official perks.

[American X]

To me the WSJ article is missing the mark. Obama is obviously very smart. He seems to have a difficult time converting good ideas to sound policy decisions.

Make no mistake, that is a false choice. I would say his 'good ideas' have been intellectually bankrupt for about 40 years. It is unpossible to convert his ideas into sound policy.

And I would prefer the President have a bit of wisdom and courage to go with smarts.