I'm surprised that the high level of Obama dissatisfaction has not translated into a primary challenge.
The thing is, as much as I would like to see Obama stop being such a centrist wuss, I am generally okay with him. He's not the progressive I thought he would be, he's made some bad decisions, but I think he is doing a reasonable job. People who blame the economy on the acting president are fools. Although I do think that Bush did a chunk of damage with his tax cuts, I would not blame the economic situation wholly on him either. I'd be interested to see what a second Obama term would bring.
While I am frustrated with how the federal government has been operating, I am less dissatisfied with Obama and the executive wing, and far far more disgusted with the decrepit whorehouse we call Congress. Particularly the freshmen Tea Baggers who have done an excellent job of voting down every last thing Obama has attempted to do, and then gleefully ran to the media saying how his policies have failed, somehow making their success at breaking things his fault.
Very much this. The president is not are main problem. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have been ranging from ineffectual to just plain loathsome.
It was my understanding that when Bush was governor of TX he had a good report with elected Democrats. When he got to DC that began to change as things became more and more partisan. In Obama's case one of the first things he did in office was become partisan. Remember how he famously told the (elected) Republican leadership "I won"?
I think much of the partisanship on the Republican side traces back to that moment. Any good will or honeymoon period was destroyed in that meeting and the tone was set, and a deeply partisan tone it is.
What good is a president if the other party refuses to work with them? Get somebody in there without that sort of partisan baggage and shit can get done. I admit that I don't follow a lot of lower level democrats but, aside from Hillary is there a rising star among the Democrats who can get shit done in DC without control of Congress? Is there another Bill Clinton out there?
Dude, Obama has hardly been partisan. Most of the frustration from the left has been from him constant reaching out and trying to make compromises that water down progressive action to be essentially what the Republicans wanted in the first place, and the Republicans still say no just to be obstructionist. He only seems to be partisan because he is the target of so much concentrated political aggression; he can't not be the opposition because he is so opposed.
Dude, Obama has hardly been partisan. Most of the frustration from the left has been from him constant reaching out and trying to make compromises that water down progressive action to be essentially what the Republicans wanted in the first place, and the Republicans still say no just to be obstructionist. He only seems to be partisan because he is the target of so much concentrated political aggression; he can't not be the opposition because he is so opposed.
This. I recall several instances where the Dems started giving concessions on bills, and the Republicans then said 'Oh, wait, we actually want more'. They kept shifting what they said they wanted to cause more delays and eventually shifted any 'compromise' to be 'give us everything we want', typically insisting on doing things like eliminating essential government agencies and raising taxes on the middle class while keeping the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in tact. This is not an example of failed policy on the part of the Executive branch, but rather a colossal failure of the self-righteous ultra-conservative party to get anything worthwhile accomplished in four years as well as an attempt to deny every doing anything wrong, which has been going on for decades as well.
I agree with OS and Adam also Bush "Bush claims mandate, sets 2nd-term goals / 'I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it'" (that didn't go so well...
I agree with OS and Adam also Bush "Bush claims mandate, sets 2nd-term goals / 'I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it'" (that didn't go so well...
Exactly my point! Obama suffered the same fate when he proclaimed "I won!" It set a partisan tone and the opposition party took that as a challenge to thwart as much of the President's agenda as possible.
Exactly my point! Obama suffered the same fate when he proclaimed "I won!" It set a partisan tone and the opposition party took that as a challenge to thwart as much of the President's agenda as possible.
Another problem we have in Washington is that both parties have moved so far to their extreme ends that the points they disagree on outnumber the points they do agree on.
Think of it like two friends ordering a pizza. Both people want a pizza but they disagree on some of the toppings. In the end they decide which toppings will cover the entire pizza and which will only cover half of the pizza.
In Washington we have a case where not only can the two parties not agree on whether or not they want a pizza but toppings that they were once willing to allow onto the pizza they now declare themselves to be deathly allergic to. Which results in them claiming that having even a small amount of that topping on the pizza will result in the entire thing being contaminated and inedible.
Other issues get muddled up by slogans and buzz words. Take taxes for example. Yes, they need to be raised. No, raising taxes does not kill jobs in large part because the cost of an employee is deductible under the tax code.
There is also the problem of how you describe the tax code. Republicans love to point out how the rich already pay the lion's share of income tax receipts collected by the government while Democrats like to focus on the fact that even after paying all that money the rich still have lots of money left over. Which, while true, does not negate the fact that the rich already pay a major portion of the income taxes.
"Pay your fair share" is a slogan that can be interpreted different ways. It can be seen as a call for a flat tax. What's more fair than everyone paying the same percent? Is sales tax fair, no matter what you buy you pay the same X% to the state. Where it breaks down is at the lower end of the income range. If you only make $20,000 a year and you have to pay 10% that $2,000 has a larger impact on your life than the $10,000 someone who earns $100,000 has to pay.
Exactly my point! Obama suffered the same fate when he proclaimed "I won!" It set a partisan tone and the opposition party took that as a challenge to thwart as much of the President's agenda as possible.
Um what?
Is there a date for that? I know I was more than willing to give Obama a honeymoon period after he was elected. Well, until he made the "I won" statement to a room full of people who had also won their respective races.
Your analogy is close, Steve. I'd say it's more along the lines of starting to talk about pizza, at a party, but then one guy decides he wants only his toppings that nobody else but him likes. After bickering and having other people at the party cave in to his demands, he then says "Know what? I don't really like any of you or pizza. We're getting Indian food because I said so. Oh, and I'm having all of you pay for my friends. And fuck you, little Mr. "I can't eat gluten", you can die hungry in the gutter. There, I compromised." On top of that, then blames the party's host for everyone not having food.
both parties have moved so far to their extreme ends that the points they disagree on outnumber the points they do agree on.
I disagree with this. The Republicans are taking an extreme line on social, economic, and even FP issues. The Democrats, meanwhile, are taking squarely centrist positions almost across the board, with a few slight leanings into the barest hints of the "left." It takes a heavy personal bias to even begin to consider the Democrats as an "extreme" party.
Further demonstrating his incompetence and lack of any sort of understanding of government, Rick Perry has suggested we should repeal the 17th amendment.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are taking squarely centrist positions almost across the board, with a few slight leanings into the barest hints of the "left." It takes a heavy personal bias to even begin to consider the Democrats as an "extreme" party.
This. If the Democratic party became magically socialist overnight, there would be fucking murders. I'm fairly convinced that FDR would be shot if he won the presidency today.
My biggest problem with Democrats in D.C. is their lack of fight; them seem to give up at the slightest hint of resistance. Then they complain about the GOP being unfair when it's their lack of will which rewards such behavior from the GOP in the first place.
Yea, it's really hard to say the democrats are far left, if you look at almost all the major accomplishments of the obama presdency they were either started or suggested by republicans at one point or another. From the bail outs to the healthcare plan. We've drifted so far to the right at this point that even moderate republican positions look leftist.
I don't recall Republicans calling for a government run national health care system. I know there were calls for reform of the existing system but not for nationalizing.
We can have a common goal and disagree on how to get there and that's fine. However, if I want to get the flower growing on the mountainside and your solution is to destroy the mountain. Well, you can't claim destroying the mountain was my idea.
Yea, but the President Obama didn't national healthcare in the slightest. The plan he went with was VERY simliar to what old newt put forward in 1993-4.
Suddenly none of the republicans were for a system that they proposed not 15 years before AND had championed and enacted in states only a few years prior.
I'm just surprised at how un Christian our nation has become with some citizens desiring things like public prayer.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Matthew 6:5-6
I'm just surprised at how un Christian our nation has become with some citizens desiring things like public prayer.
Our nation has always been very, very Christian. It's only a problem now because there is a secular movement arising which is challenging long existing practices which were allowed implicitly. If anything, this shows how there is a changing tide in terms of religion in America.
I'm just surprised at how un Christian our nation has become with some citizens desiring things like public prayer.
Our nation has always been very, very Christian. It's only a problem now because there is a secular movement arising which is challenging long existing practices which were allowed implicitly. If anything, this shows how there is a changing tide in terms of religion in America.
Possibly, despite the measures that have continually been taken to keep government away from religion. Do you think our nation has always been Christian in the sense that evangelicals think of Christian? I'm not sure you could say our nation has always been Conservative, considering that we've historically embraced progressive things rather quickly.
Newt is not a patron saint of Republicanism. There is a reason why his ideas from 15 years ago did not gain traction.
As to religion... funny how the evangelicals are all for religious freedom when it is their religion that benefits but their views quickly change when another religion tries to enjoy those same benefits.
Newt is not a patron saint of Republicanism. There is a reason why his ideas from 15 years ago did not gain traction.
As to religion... funny how the evangelicals are all for religious freedom when it is their religion that benefits but their views quickly change when another religion tries to enjoy those same benefits.
Still if you are arguing that President Obama has been radically leftist.. You really should be looking at yourself.
Apparently the GOP fearing they are losing the debate on renewing the payroll tax cut decided to add poison pills to the bill, including drug testing people before getting unemployment benefits. I guess if you get laid off, you must be some kind of drug addict.
Comments
I think much of the partisanship on the Republican side traces back to that moment. Any good will or honeymoon period was destroyed in that meeting and the tone was set, and a deeply partisan tone it is.
What good is a president if the other party refuses to work with them? Get somebody in there without that sort of partisan baggage and shit can get done. I admit that I don't follow a lot of lower level democrats but, aside from Hillary is there a rising star among the Democrats who can get shit done in DC without control of Congress? Is there another Bill Clinton out there?
This is not an example of failed policy on the part of the Executive branch, but rather a colossal failure of the self-righteous ultra-conservative party to get anything worthwhile accomplished in four years as well as an attempt to deny every doing anything wrong, which has been going on for decades as well.
Think of it like two friends ordering a pizza. Both people want a pizza but they disagree on some of the toppings. In the end they decide which toppings will cover the entire pizza and which will only cover half of the pizza.
In Washington we have a case where not only can the two parties not agree on whether or not they want a pizza but toppings that they were once willing to allow onto the pizza they now declare themselves to be deathly allergic to. Which results in them claiming that having even a small amount of that topping on the pizza will result in the entire thing being contaminated and inedible.
Other issues get muddled up by slogans and buzz words. Take taxes for example. Yes, they need to be raised. No, raising taxes does not kill jobs in large part because the cost of an employee is deductible under the tax code.
There is also the problem of how you describe the tax code. Republicans love to point out how the rich already pay the lion's share of income tax receipts collected by the government while Democrats like to focus on the fact that even after paying all that money the rich still have lots of money left over. Which, while true, does not negate the fact that the rich already pay a major portion of the income taxes.
"Pay your fair share" is a slogan that can be interpreted different ways. It can be seen as a call for a flat tax. What's more fair than everyone paying the same percent? Is sales tax fair, no matter what you buy you pay the same X% to the state. Where it breaks down is at the lower end of the income range. If you only make $20,000 a year and you have to pay 10% that $2,000 has a larger impact on your life than the $10,000 someone who earns $100,000 has to pay.
TL;DR - Democratic senator backed by large corporate interests put forth a bill to end overtime for even more IT professionals.
We can have a common goal and disagree on how to get there and that's fine. However, if I want to get the flower growing on the mountainside and your solution is to destroy the mountain. Well, you can't claim destroying the mountain was my idea.
Suddenly none of the republicans were for a system that they proposed not 15 years before AND had championed and enacted in states only a few years prior.
As to religion... funny how the evangelicals are all for religious freedom when it is their religion that benefits but their views quickly change when another religion tries to enjoy those same benefits.