@mysteryman,
Yes but admit it Bushy baby created this economic tragedy and you expect Obama to do magic tricks, walk on water.
Obama's done a lot, but gets little credit for it; why?
Great expectations.
@xris,
No, I dont expect him to do magic tricks.
But I do expect him to be honest, and so far he hasnt been.
@mysteryman,
And Bush baby was honest..he was honest about weapons of mass destruction, that led you into the most expensive war America has entered since Vietnam. When you don't know the extent of the **** the last government left, you need to reevaluate your position and your strategy..Don't look at him, look at the crap Bushy baby left.
Obama should learn from Raygun. He did little but focussed on the absolute minimum but necessary. He played to the gallery with quips and good public relations. Obama should focus on only the most urgent and keep a good public image. Keeping busy only reinforces a nerd appearance and they don't look good.
The great Obama accomplishments are pretty irrelevant in the face of the GOP big lie. The GOP makes Joseph Goebbels look like a piker when it comes to propaganda. In the meantime, the GOP will not divulge a single painful measure that it would take were it to regain control of congress.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
The great Obama accomplishments are pretty irrelevant in the face of the GOP big lie. The GOP makes Joseph Goebbels look like a piker when it comes to propaganda. In the meantime, the GOP will not divulge a single painful measure that it would take were it to regain control of congress.
Yeah, all that GOP propaganda. Like all the media, the entire school system are totally pro-GOP propaganda.
The popular explanation on the Left is a variation of Diests:
There are more idiots and miscreants in America than there are intelligent, good hearted folk.
It can't possibly be the case that those who disagree with Obama and oppose "what he has done," have come to their position through reasoned analysis.
Either they are the weak minded victims of Republican propaganda and "Big Lies," or they are mean spirited, greedy racists.
After all, it can't be that he's a fraud, or even simply mistaken.
And we're all so damned impatient. Why can't we simply accept that all of his efforts will, eventually, bear fruit four to eight years from now?
After all, his record is chock full of successful endeavors that took time to prove themselves. Let's see, there was the...and then there was that...
Why should anyone trust his policies? He has no track record at all!
No matter what he did, he would suffer Republican attacks --- that's DC politics and it works both ways.
However, if he began his governing with reasonable restraint and didn't adopt this attitude that he's smarter than all of us and knows what's best for us, he might have been able to hold on to his support among Independents.
But no, that's not the way The One rolls.
American hubris is anathema to the American Left, but they, apparently, are just fine with the personal hubris of individual leaders.
Say what you will about Bush, but it wasn't about him personally, it was about America. With Obama, its all about him and he's obviously willing to take America down a peg if it suits his aim.
Liberals don't have a problem with Obama's gargantuan ego though, because his, like theirs, is well deserved. He and they are clearly right after all.
What to do about the vast number of dolts and bigots who don't get it or don't want to?
The answer can easily bump up against serious danger.
I am delighted to see the signs that the majority of my fellow Americans have not bought into Obama's BS.
And if these signs do not result in a reversal in November I will be depressed but accepting. In a democracy the people get what they ask for.
But if they do, will the Democrats accept the will of the people, or will they push through all sorts of legislative mischief during the Lame Duck 4th quarter of 2010?
After all, they know better than the rest of us, and the ends justify the means. In time they will be vindicated.
Our leaders are not smarter than us, and if they were, it wouldn't matter --- they represent, not rule.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Either they are the weak minded victims of Republican propaganda and "Big Lies," or they are mean spirited, greedy racists.
Well, I don't know if you are a racist or not. But the rest seems about right. Do you
disagree that you are mean-spirited and greedy?
Before knocking Obama and his approval ratings, you might want to keep in mind that he is equal to, if not above, where Reagan was at this point in his term, in terms of popularity. Perhaps this metric is not quite as determinative of success as you may be positing here?
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:Before knocking Obama and his approval ratings, you might want to keep in mind that he is equal to, if not above, where Reagan was at this point in his term, in terms of popularity. Perhaps this metric is not quite as determinative of success as you may be positing here
the number you are talking about is job approval...I am sure you dont want to compare what ever Reagan's trust number was to Obama's though.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:Before knocking Obama and his approval ratings, you might want to keep in mind that he is equal to, if not above, where Reagan was at this point in his term, in terms of popularity. Perhaps this metric is not quite as determinative of success as you may be positing here
the number you are talking about is job approval...I am sure you dont want to compare what ever Reagan's trust number was to Obama's though.
Oh, please. I'm sure you would shift your argument to whatever metric makes things look the most Doom and Gloom, because that is your MO, Hawk.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:Oh, please. I'm sure you would shift your argument to whatever metric makes things look the most Doom and Gloom, because that is your MO, Hawk
My MO is to worry about things that appear to be problems, you might take it up, it is a proven survival technique....
So you have now blown off the point....which pretty much proves that you dont understand politics.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:Oh, please. I'm sure you would shift your argument to whatever metric makes things look the most Doom and Gloom, because that is your MO, Hawk
My MO is to worry about things that appear to be problems, you might take it up, it is a proven survival technique....
So you have now blown off the point....which pretty much proves that you dont understand politics.
No, it doesn't 'prove' that at all. I do agree that it is your MO to worry and bitch about things, though.
I'll tell ya right now - the Dems will hold both houses of Congress after the election, and Obama will be re-elected in 2012. You can take both of those to the bank. I feel confident saying this because I've actually studied the electoral situaiton in some depth and neither the numbers nor the politics currently stack up to Republican control in either election. Have you studied the actual situation, or are you just sort of shooting from the hip as usual?
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:Oh, please. I'm sure you would shift your argument to whatever metric makes things look the most Doom and Gloom, because that is your MO, Hawk
My MO is to worry about things that appear to be problems, you might take it up, it is a proven survival technique....
So you have now blown off the point....which pretty much proves that you dont understand politics.
No, it doesn't 'prove' that at all. I do agree that it is your MO to worry and bitch about things, though.
I'll tell ya right now - the Dems will hold both houses of Congress after the election, and Obama will be re-elected in 2012. You can take both of those to the bank. I feel confident saying this because I've actually studied the electoral situaiton in some depth and neither the numbers nor the politics currently stack up to Republican control in either election. Have you studied the actual situation, or are you just sort of shooting from the hip as usual?
Cycloptichorn
I believe the Democrats are smart enough to realize they should have a different candidate for 2012, so they have a better chance of staying in power.
Perhaps, Hillary's sun has not yet set?
@Foofie,
I was for Hilary but it will be awful hard to unseat an incumbent. Anyway Obama is doing well. Hilary even in 2016 won't be too old. With her secretary state she would be a shoe-in but she must run her campaign smarter i.e. in the primaries she should avoid Republican rhetoric.
@hawkeye10,
Another route to slander Obama. We dont know who he is , so we suggest he might be someone we should not trust..How can we trust someone we dont know?.dont trust dark tall strangers. Clever, very clever ...
There are a LOT of factors that go into this topic's question and its complexity isn't likely realized by us not completely in-the-know. Even so, I think its a great question. Here's what I see the reasons are for his current predicament:
1. The biggest issue is the 'promises' one; its a trap every US president falls into, except that he did it to levels I've never seen. You see, in order to even have a chance at the presidency, every candidate must make promises they can't keep. This is due to the naivety of the U.S. culture; as if the reality of each situation - which they can't completely know while campaigning - wouldn't change whether or not they'd make these promises in the first place. Once in office, and the complexity of each problem is realized, it's too late to take them back. The "wave of hope" many of us felt when he was elected was based, at least in part, on the gargantuan set of promises he made, and made well - as if Merlin had returned to wave a wand and repair *all these things* without pain, time or infighting.
2. His second biggest mistake is tied to the first: Despite realizing that he can't keep all the promises he made, he pressed to make the reforms he thought he could; volatile, contentious issues. And since any change at all precipitates someone getting pissed and disappointed, the two (Can't keep *these* promises but I'm going to to push through the ones I *can*) just added fuel to the fire. As an example: Reforming Healthcare became a heated, hateful, emotionally-charged issue; nothing short of hysteria complete with epic-level smear campaigns. Should he have waited to address this? Should he have addressed it at all? Was there, for him, any way to "win"? - You see what I mean, its a lose/lose proposition any way you slice it.
3. The third largest dissatisfaction-factor I see is the environment he came into; mainly, the economy and ongoing wars. These can't be 'fixed' by the president alone and will inevitably take years to recover or solve (if at all) - but we are a country of blame-layers and the president is the only *single* target we can point at. These huge problems were handed to him - and because of this - they'll be his alone to either take bitter medicine or not address at all. Truly a losing situation...
I think he'll be taken out of office at first chance; which really is a shame, but all things considered is not surprising.
Thanks
@Khethil,
Khethil, thank you for a well defined thoughtful answer to the question.
BBB
