Jump to content

monkeygirl
 Share

Recommended Posts

He's charismatic? Really? When? When he's trying to be elected? That's pretty much the only time I've ever seen it. Even then, during his re-election campaign he stumbled a few times during the debates and was rather snooze-worthy. Turning on charm to get elected doesn't make you charismatic, it just makes you an actor. Bleh.

He's incredibly charismatic when discussing things he cares about, like being powerful. But he can't fake it for the things he doesn't care about, like actually being president. He's kind of like the popular kid in high school who ran for class president because he was popular and then did nothing and never planned the reunion. He wants the title and is willing to pretend to care about politics in order to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a really stupid Facebook discussion and long to have a real conversation about this with people who aren't all GOD and stupid.

 

Did you vote for Obama? Are you a fan? What are you upset about RIGHT NOW regarding the White House? What's he handling well, what do you think he's dropping the ball on and what would you do about it?

 

Are you voting in the midterms? if N/why not?

 

How much of a lame duck is he?

 

And honestly, I expected a LOT more LOLZ and ****ery from Biden. They've hidden him too well for my liking.

I didn't vote for him. His administration has espoused a rather porous, at times inconsistent, foreign policy but I do like his aversion to sending in U.S. troops to confront global issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is certainly smarter and more competent than Bush, to be sure, but I wouldn't say he was different than Dubya. Personality wise, sure, but politically... Well, he has avoided creating any new wars, and has thankfully disengaged us somewhat from Israel (although not enough, in my opinion), but has otherwise continued or escalated most of the Bush-era foreign policies. Domestically, every policy he's adopted or continued has it's roots in either the Bush administration, or in a Republican proposal (something the Tea Baggers are, amusingly, too stupid to realize). The real difference between the two is again in competence level. Obama has displayed moderately more competence than W (compare Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy to Bush's of Katrina, for example). The one substantial policy decision Obama can maybe point at and take credit for is the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (which is itself arguable, as the military brass had already been beating the drums for repeal for years, as the policy was hurting re-enlistment and retention numbers, so the repeal was potentially inevitable, no matter who was office).

 

That's kinda why I can't really take his critics on the right seriously. They are attacking him for basically doing what they were already doing, and he's continued the same policies that have been in place since at least Reagan. 20 years ago, Obama would have been considered a moderate Republican. Maybe the problem is the right wing has moved further to the extreme.

 

Until there is a legit third party in the government or the electoral college is revised I don't think there will be an effective president. Politicians are more concerned with blocking each other out of reflex as opposed to negotiating any sort of compromise.

Sadly, the likelihood of a third party arising in the U.S. is nill. America will always be a two-party system. Not because of a conspiracy to suppress third parties, as is often alleged, but because the design of America's election system makes two parties inevitable. A 'First Past the Post', or 'Winner Takes All' voting system, as we have in American, means structural issues, and the spoiler effect, that unavoidably prevents the rise of third parties. Unless voting in America is overhauled, with the adoption of a different voting system, that will not change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest difference between Obama and W is cultural. Neither of these are "stupid" people - Bush's folksy oafishness and "bushisms" were part of a carefully contrived facade. It was designed to appeal to a certain demographic: down-home, four square churchgoing types in suburban and small town middle America, "Mayberry" as it were. Obama comes across as more intellectual and, of course, has an ethnic sounding name and is multicultural. Contrived to appeal to a very different set. Both of these men were, as Carrie Mathison put it, "empty suits in the pockets of corporate America and the defense industrial complex."

 

MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky once said that an effective way to keep a lock on power is to have "a very limited range of permissible opinion, but encourage very vigorous debate within that range." Chomsky also coined the phrase "manufacturing consent" to describe the manner in which entrenched interests use mass media to gain totalitarian levels of public support for foreign military ventures, regressive policies and so forth. A better term might be "manufacturing dissent." Wherein the state and the corporate sector mass produce and market various forms of protest - state funded identity politics movements in ivy league universities, astroturf organizations like the tea party, conspiracy theories and so on - and then pit them against one another over issues that may be important in the lives of some citizens - abortion and gay marriage for instance, but have no bearing whatsoever on the actual structures of power no matter what side prevails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm in a really stupid Facebook discussion and long to have a real conversation about this with people who aren't all GOD and stupid.

 

Did you vote for Obama? Are you a fan? What are you upset about RIGHT NOW regarding the White House? What's he handling well, what do you think he's dropping the ball on and what would you do about it?

 

Are you voting in the midterms? if N/why not?

 

How much of a lame duck is he?

 

And honestly, I expected a LOT more LOLZ and ****ery from Biden. They've hidden him too well for my liking.

I didn't vote for him. His administration has espoused a rather porous, at times inconsistent, foreign policy but I do like his aversion to sending in U.S. troops to confront global issues.

 

JM is back!

 

I agree, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

The biggest difference between Obama and W is cultural. Neither of these are "stupid" people - Bush's folksy oafishness and "bushisms" were part of a carefully contrived facade. It was designed to appeal to a certain demographic: down-home, four square churchgoing types in suburban and small town middle America, "Mayberry" as it were. Obama comes across as more intellectual and, of course, has an ethnic sounding name and is multicultural. Contrived to appeal to a very different set. Both of these men were, as Carrie Mathison put it, "empty suits in the pockets of corporate America and the defense industrial complex."

 

MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky once said that an effective way to keep a lock on power is to have "a very limited range of permissible opinion, but encourage very vigorous debate within that range." Chomsky also coined the phrase "manufacturing consent" to describe the manner in which entrenched interests use mass media to gain totalitarian levels of public support for foreign military ventures, regressive policies and so forth. A better term might be "manufacturing dissent." Wherein the state and the corporate sector mass produce and market various forms of protest - state funded identity politics movements in ivy league universities, astroturf organizations like the tea party, conspiracy theories and so on - and then pit them against one another over issues that may be important in the lives of some citizens - abortion and gay marriage for instance, but have no bearing whatsoever on the actual structures of power no matter what side prevails.

Here is me trying not to be non political about either guy, and offering my opinion....

 

Yeah, I may not have agreed with much if his ideology but I didn't think Bush was a stupid man: graduate of Harvard and Yale, and was a fighter pilot for the NG. Then his business management and having been governor of Texas furthers the argument he isn't stupid. I think that was one part acting like " good ol' boy common folk" and two parts media mythologizing him as a moron. The fact is the guy may not be a genius, but is more intelligent than the average person, including myself. I don't think I could have done the things he did, as far as running businesses, being governor and president, and while I never piloted a manned aircraft, and a fighter jet no less, I do understand how much you have to know to fly an UAV, and a manned craft is going to be far more complicated.

 

I believe both Obama and Bush are on equal footing intelligence wise, each with their strengths and weaknesses. Bush was more a big picture guy who delegated, Obama is sort of a type A personality that tries to have direct control, or gives direct control to people who think exactly as he does. I think in many cases ideology blinds both guys to certain things, or they get locked into a mode of doing things due to their parties' ideology. The thing with Obama, IMHO is that he is someone who largely has lived a "theoretical life" in that he has never really lived in or put things into real world practice. In short, he is an academic and political activist trying to be a president, much like Woodrow Wilson was, sometimes being successful, but many times finding what works in a classroom or in theory doesn't necessarily work in real life, if that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is certainly smarter and more competent than Bush, to be sure, but I wouldn't say he was different than Dubya. Personality wise, sure, but politically... Well, he has avoided creating any new wars, and has thankfully disengaged us somewhat from Israel (although not enough, in my opinion), but has otherwise continued or escalated most of the Bush-era foreign policies. Domestically, every policy he's adopted or continued has it's roots in either the Bush administration, or in a Republican proposal (something the Tea Baggers are, amusingly, too stupid to realize). The real difference between the two in again in competence level. Obama has displayed moderately more competence than W (compare Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy to Bush's of Katrina, for example). The one substantial policy decision Obama can maybe point at and take credit for is the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (which is itself arguable, as the military brass had already been beating the drums for repeal, as it was hurting re-enlistment and retention numbers, so the repeal was potentially inevitable, no matter who was office).

 

That's kinda why I can't really take his critics on the right seriously. They are attacking him for basically doing what they were already doing, and he's continued the same policies that have been in place since at least Reagan. 20 years ago, Obama would have been considered a moderate Republican. Maybe the problem is the right wing has moved further to the extreme.

 

 

 

But aren't those "critics on the right" deriding some of Obama's conduct precisely because it isn't a continuation of "what they were already doing"? To be sure, Obama has continued "doing what they were already doing." However, undoubtedly Obama has engaged in some conduct which is not a continuation of "doing what they were already doing" and they are criticizing him for it. Obama is, as a whole, anything but a moderate Republican, not today or 20 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm in a really stupid Facebook discussion and long to have a real conversation about this with people who aren't all GOD and stupid.

 

Did you vote for Obama? Are you a fan? What are you upset about RIGHT NOW regarding the White House? What's he handling well, what do you think he's dropping the ball on and what would you do about it?

 

Are you voting in the midterms? if N/why not?

 

How much of a lame duck is he?

 

And honestly, I expected a LOT more LOLZ and ****ery from Biden. They've hidden him too well for my liking.

I didn't vote for him. His administration has espoused a rather porous, at times inconsistent, foreign policy but I do like his aversion to sending in U.S. troops to confront global issues.

 

JM is back!

 

I agree, by the way.

 

How ya been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ya been?

Eh.. same old sh-t, you know. I live in Europe now. Still an attorney. You?

 

But aren't those "critics on the right" deriding some of Obama's conduct precisely because it isn't a continuation of "what they were already doing"? To be sure, Obama has continued "doing what they were already doing." However, undoubtedly Obama has engaged in some conduct which is not a continuation of "doing what they were already doing" and they are criticizing him for it. Obama is, as a whole, anything but a moderate Republican, not today or 20 years ago.

Do you think this is really true though? I think the major difference between Obama and previous administrations is mainly in presentation and rhetorical styles, and I think Obsidian has a fair point. Let's take, for example, the signature piece of legislation by Obama- health care. Putting aside whether the legislation is a good idea or not, I think it's a little disingenuous to paint the legislation as a creature solely of the Democrats' doing. The plan itself is a variation of an originally Republican idea, that I believe most Republicans in Congress opposed mainly for political opportunism. For example, we need look no further than Medicare Part D to know the GOP will pass health care legislation when they are in power. Now, you could point out that the latter lacks the individual mandate, and there's a point to be made there, but I would argue that's a difference in degree and not in kind. One may be more far reaching but they both fundamentally rest on the principle that there is a government role in health care.

 

Also, I think Obsidian is not unfair to state Obama could've been a moderate Republican 20 years ago. Let's go back 20 years- who was the leading moderate at the time? Well, just 2 years prior, it likely was who was in the White House- George HW Bush. Could you honestly say that Obama is that significantly different on the political spectrum than Bush? I think you have to admit that the Democrats have changed quite substantially since the emergence of the DLC in the mid 90s.

 

Obviously there are differences, both between Obama and (both) Bushes. But Obsidian is making a general observation about how many critics of Obama seem to lack a sense of perspective, and I don't think that's an obtuse observation to make, especially since he seems to imply the Left does the same thing.. and in fact, knowing previous posts Obsidian has made, I think if asked he would admit the Left can be equally bad in their lack of perspective.. i.e. failing to realize that Obama has not substantially shifted from any particular Bush-era policy and being sucked into the hype via rhetorical devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How ya been?

Eh.. same old sh-t, you know. I live in Europe now. Still an attorney. You?

 

 

 

 

Obviously there are differences, both between Obama and (both) Bushes. But Obsidian is making a general observation about how many critics of Obama seem to lack a sense of perspective, and I don't think that's an obtuse observation to make, especially since he seems to imply the Left does the same thing.. and in fact, knowing previous posts Obsidian has made, I think if asked he would admit the Left can be equally bad in their lack of perspective.. i.e. failing to realize that Obama has not substantially shifted from any particular Bush-era policy and being sucked into the hype via rhetorical devices.

 

 

 

Eh.. same old sh-t, you know. I live in Europe now. Still an attorney. You?

 

 

Live in Europe? What prompted you to move to the other side of the pond?

 

Do you think this is really true though? I think the major difference between Obama and previous administrations is mainly in presentation and rhetorical styles, and I think Obsidian has a fair point. Let's take, for example, the signature piece of legislation by Obama- health care. Putting aside whether the legislation is a good idea or not, I don't think it's a stretch to paint the legislation as a creature solely of the Democrats' doing. The plan itself is a variation of an originally Republican idea, that I believe most Republicans in Congress opposed mainly for political opportunism. For example, we need look no further than Medicare Part D to know the GOP will pass health care legislation when they are in power. Now, you could point out that the latter lacks the individual mandate, and there's a point to be made there, but I would argue that's a difference in degree and not in kind. One may be more far reaching but they both fundamentally rest on the principle that there is a government role in health care.

 

 

Well, I'm not taking the position there is a "major difference" between Obama and previous administrations or his "critics on the right." I do, however, understand the "critics on the right" derision of the Obama Administration is in regards to some of his conduct quite simply not being any continuation of "what they were already doing." A distinction in the past, and I think resonates today, is the "hawkish" nature of the right and such a feature not as prominent among the left or Obama. In my estimation, the right preferred a more militaristic response in Syria, Ukraine, Libya, which is a continuation of a feature of the right but one which Obama has not only expressed disdain for but has refused to follow.

 

The Obama Administrations advocacy for higher tax rates, specifically for top income earners, is not a continuation of what the right was "already doing." Or let's look at your example, health care. Both parties may agree "fundamentally...there is a government role in health care" but this shouldn't be understood as removing any and all meaningful and substantive distinctions between the Obama Administration and the right regarding how this governmental role is undertaken. Significant differences exist between the right and the Obama Administration regarding the extent and nature of governmental involvement in health care, although they may reach unanimity of such a role should exist. Universal health care, or significantly expanding the number of the insured, through some government program and/or governmental intervention, has been the proverbial sought after gem of the left and Democratic Party for over the last 60 years, which isn't true of the right or the Republican Party.

 

It is also true the right and Republican Party has generally desired to minimize, although their ultimate goal is repeal and removal, of many social welfare programs which originated under FDR and LBJ. Republican legislation in this area can best be viewed as grudingly accepting the status quo while desiring to remove/repeal or minimize those programs ex: Medicaid D. Paul Ryan has merely continued the right and the Republican theme of deriding the "War on Poverty" and the efficaciousness of those programs in seeking to reduce them. Obama, by agreeing to sign legislation to ameliorate the money expended on some of those social welfare programs in exchange for tax reform in which the high income earners pay more in taxes and aren't permitted to hide their money overseas, wouldn't be an example of the Obama continuing the conduct of the right as much as Obama sacrificing in an area of his ideology to achieve some accomplishment adhering to his left-wing ideology.

 

It seems to me the most popular political criticism flavor over the last 4 years has been to assert the Obama Administration isn't doing anything different than the right-wing before it, and I find no evidence to support this assertion. Rather, I see two political parties who, at its base core issues, are different from each other.

 

 

Also, I think Obsidian is not unfair to state Obama could've been a moderate Republican 20 years ago. Let's go back 20 years- who was the leading moderate at the time? Well, just 2 years prior, it likely was who is the White House- George HW Bush. Could you honestly say that Obama is that significantly different on the political spectrum than Bush? I think you have to admit that the Democrats have changed quite substantially since the emergence of the DLC in the mid 90s.

 

 

Yes! Obama needs to be examined in his entirety, not merely what he has done in office, but what he has expressed he wanted to do, what he wanted to accomplish. President Obama made it no secret he preferred a single payer universal health care system and it is difficult to imagine he could have been a moderate Republican 20 years ago with such a view. He espoused for a public option, again not sure this would have been consistent the views of a moderate Republican 20 years ago. His world view and America's role in it, as it relates to foreign policy, is also different from the more hawkish and attitude of we aren't going to take anymore crap prevalent in the Republican Party in the 80s, moderates included. I could list several other examples but I have my doubts Obama would qualify as a moderate Republican in the 80s.

 

To me, people making these remarks are disillusioned left-wingers who had aspirations of Obama ushering in radical left-wing ideology to be disappointed when Obam, instead, instituted a more moderate left-wing ideology. In other words, because he wasn't far left enough for them they want to make the false and poor comparison of him to moderate Republicans, or assert he is just merely another right-winger. Yes, it may be true Obama did not pursue or follow as progressive and as left leaning a policy, executive order, or laws as some on the left desired but this doesn't make him a moderate Republican, a conservative or right-winger, or member of the right in sheeps clothing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is certainly smarter and more competent than Bush, to be sure, but I wouldn't say he was different than Dubya. Personality wise, sure, but politically... Well, he has avoided creating any new wars, and has thankfully disengaged us somewhat from Israel (although not enough, in my opinion), but has otherwise continued or escalated most of the Bush-era foreign policies.

Doesn't every administration do this, necessarily? Or am I just thinking 'in general'? I don't know enough about foreign policy to know how much each President can mess with the status quo. Do they have the ability to institute policies that outlive their administration? How often is this done? How much can they really screw future presidencies here?

 

 

The real difference between the two in again in competence level. Obama has displayed moderately more competence than W (compare Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy to Bush's of Katrina, for example). The one substantial policy decision Obama can maybe point at and take credit for is the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (which is itself arguable, as the military brass had already been beating the drums for repeal, as it was hurting re-enlistment and retention numbers, so the repeal was potentially inevitable, no matter who was office).

EXACTLY-and WTF took so long on this? I won't give him this even though it happened on his watch, for that very reason. And competence or perceived competence? And on the Katrina level-is there a difference/does it matter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think where Bush shined is he had a clear idea of what should be done and did it. He just did it and he was able to accomplish this through his cabinet and other members of his administration who were good at accomplishing the goals that the administration wanted. I know this is one of my lamest posts but it is not so easy to read and post on a iPhone 3gs, but the upshot is that Bush had Rove and Cheney and stuff got done. Now the stuff that got done I didn't agree with at all but on the bright side I can say at least Bush didn't make the health care thing worse. Obama has a weak administration and a worse Congress to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think where Bush shined is he had a clear idea of what should be done and did it... Obama has a weak administration and a worse Congress to deal with.

Agreed. That's one thing I liked about Jr.-he ****ing stuck to his guns. I didn't always like what he chose to do, but admired his conviction and stubbornness when it came to execution. And I think it's O's biggest weakness-the capitulation, always with the capitulation that gets NOTHING but a diluted compromise that not only doesn't accomplish the goal, but allows the GOP to bitch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ADORED James Madison before he went off once about my business; radio and the music industry. I find him fascinating when he talks about things I know little about, but seeing him opine then stick to his guns in an area he knows little about ruined the illusion for me. I still like seeing him here, though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my employer cancelled their health care. I am shopping for new insurance tomorrow, and may de facto be forced to get Federal Health Care. Not...happy. I paid ~$1000 a year for average health care. I was very happy with that. I am sure my health insurance is going to straight up double.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.