I Can't Stop Grinning

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You think you are correct, Hawk...I think I am.

History will tell.

Name even one president who has been given a pass for ineffectiveness or poor choices because of "opposition". Leaders are expected to find a way forwards, full stop. "but, but, but, People will not do what I tell them to do" goes nowhere with historians .

Hawk, I wrote:

Quote:

Obama may not go down in history as a great president, but he will be seen as a competent one...and one who persevered in the face of opposition of a twisted sort.

You responded:

Quote:

He will go down as a president who massively failed to understand the shortcomings of the medical system, and who massively misjudged the problems of the economy, and who was almost completely irrelevant in the social changes taking place.

History will judge him...and one of us will be closer to the truth than the other.

I'm betting I will be.

One thing he has going in his favor is the fact that the beginning (finally) of reasonable universal health care will always be identified with him, since his opposition was kind enough to call his plan Obamacare.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

One thing he has going in his favor is the fact that the beginning (finally) of reasonable universal health care will always be identified with him,

given current evidence that looks to be every bit a fanciful as Bush's bet that historians will agree with him on Iraq, both because all evidence so far concludes that ObamaCare is the wrong medicine for what ails healthcare, and because he went out of his way to further fracture Washington when he was clearly elected to try to be a uniter. Obama even failed at his most base motive with ObamaCare, as it was supposed to help the D's win votes. Most watchers believe that it did not last election, and it is very unlikely to this election.

1 Reply

What evidence would that be, Whackeye? Have you got something more to offer than shooting your mouth off? You just obsessively hate the man, that's all that's going on here.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
One thing he has going in his favor is the fact that the beginning (finally) of reasonable universal health care will always be identified with him,

given current evidence that looks to be every bit a fanciful as Bush's bet that historians will agree with him on Iraq, both because all evidence so far concludes that ObamaCare is the wrong medicine for what ails healthcare,

Yeah...it really does not go far enough. But I expect future presidents to expand it and offer better, more affordable, more comprehensive protection. Thanks to the conservatives, even when it becomes much better...it will still be identified with Barack Obama.

Quote:

...and because he went out of his way to further fracture Washington when he was clearly elected to try to be a uniter.

No one could have been successful at "uniting" in Washington, because the Republicans made it abundantly clear that they were going to stymie anything Obama proposed...at any cost.

Quote:

Obama even failed at his most base motive with ObamaCare, as it was supposed to help the D's win votes. Most watchers believe that it did not last election, and it is very unlikely to this election.

Nice try, but there are many other dynamics at work in every election...and Obamacare is not going to be the decider in either direction. If, as expected, the Republicans make inroads in the congress...good for them.

But Obamacare is still going to be Obamacare...and will be recognized as a fine first step in sanity in our nation's healthcare problems. All done despite the rantings and ravings of the far right!

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Like the hysterical hatred of Bush?

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I'll go so far as to say if we had elected Hillary or any other white person there probably wouldn't be a Tea Party as we know it today.

Then you will go so far as to project your own prejudice (not of blacks but of conservatives) on others.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Obama may not go down in history as a great president, but he will be seen as a competent one...and one who persevered in the face of opposition of a twisted sort.

The Republicans of this era will be seen as bottom of the barrel, do nothings...whose only reason for existence was to hurt any initiative Obama made no matter how their mischief harmed our country.

It will take a very long time for the Obama legacy to be seen clearly, as the majority of current American journalists and academics have so much invested in the man that it is highly unlikely they will ever be willing to render an objective assessment.

What is this "era?" The "Obama Era?"

I will wager that the Republicans of the "Obama Era" will indeed be seen, to some extent, obstructionist for the sake of politics, but this is the way our government is supposed to work. No Messianic President should get a free ride to "transform" America to his particular way of thinking. I doubt future historians will agree with your visceral assessment of Republicans.

I hope we are both around long enough to prove me right.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

History certainly remembered the "do nothing" Congress of the 40s. It will remember the "do nothing but obstruct" congress of the 2010s

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

History certainly remembered the "do nothing" Congress of the 40s. It will remember the "do nothing but obstruct" congress of the 2010s

And look at how blaming congress did not work for Truman....It took almost 50 years for anyone to even try to rehabilitate his legacy (David McCullough's book). Hell, even LBJ has a better rep right now, and that is with the flower children still alive, which is saying a lot. Kennedy was another incompetent at dealing with Congress, but he did not live long enough to get tarred.

Obama has never even tried so he will get no compassion from the historians for his poor performance. The nation is fractured right now, and with no Presidential leadership it is to be expected that Congress would do nothing. Those thinking that this will earn Obama's incompetence and lack of effort a pass are delusional. Obama's willingness to fracture Washington even more for his idiotic health care "reform" that does nothing to fix what is actually wrong with healthcare will be an entirely different plank in the historians thesis of why Obama sucked. You never ever push through major orders from the federal government without at least some bipartisanship. Obama had to know better, but his greed to see his will done got the better of him. In general Obama's unwillingness to d the heavy lifting that the job demands will be his undoing so far as his legacy goes, this is already assured.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It's funny that you should bring up LBJ. The largest changes in our health and retirement system came under FDR, Social Security, LBJ, Medicare and Obama, the ACA. I suppose you think LBJ and FDR are considered incompetent for those achievements that were reviled and hated by the opposition when they were passed.

The GOP has been in opposition mode the entire time Obama has been President. It's 50 votes to repeal Obamacare will go down in history as obstructionism of the worst sort.

1 Reply

Quote:

But this has been par for the course for Obama over the last six years -- focus on minor issues to the detriment of the majority.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/the_obama_legacy_majoring_on_minor_issues.html

One specific trait of what I generally call poor judgement and incompetence is spelled out by many as Obama's choice to play small ball, that is politics, rather than leading the nation. The American Thinker piece above is about Obama pinning his hopes on avoiding massive D defeat this fall by talking about MIN WAGE. Increasing MIN WAGE is no more going to fix any of the massive problems with this economy then ObamaCare will fix the massive problems with the healthcare system. But the "optics" are good, so Obama pushes ahead. He should have learned with Obamacare that short term optics dont bring the bacon home, the programs actually have to work to do that. Obama shows little to no interest in big government actually working however, so it is all sandbox playing. Nothing gets built, nothing gets done, and we are no closer to dealing with our problems then we were when he took office.

That will be Obama's legacy, precious time wasted by a small doer.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

The largest changes in our health and retirement system came under FDR, Social Security, LBJ, Medicare and Obama, the ACA. I suppose you think LBJ and FDR are considered incompetent for those achievements that were reviled and hated by the opposition when they were passed.

of the yes votes for SS 23% were not D

Of the yes votes for medicare 22% were not D

Making America better is a marathon not a sprint, "achievements" only stick around if there is a will to let them stand, and not having the R's invested in ObamaCare makes it very likely that it will be either repealed or gutted when they have the power to do so. The D's changing the Senate rules made this likely to happen sooner rather than later, now all the R's need is 51 votes in the Senate and their guy or gal in the POTUS chair.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

parados wrote:

History certainly remembered the "do nothing" Congress of the 40s. It will remember the "do nothing but obstruct" congress of the 2010s

And look at how blaming congress did not work for Truman....It took almost 50 years for anyone to even try to rehabilitate his legacy (David McCullough's book). Hell, even LBJ has a better rep right now, and that is with the flower children still alive, which is saying a lot. Kennedy was another incompetent at dealing with Congress, but he did not live long enough to get tarred.

Obama has never even tried so he will get no compassion from the historians for his poor performance. The nation is fractured right now, and with no Presidential leadership it is to be expected that Congress would do nothing. Those thinking that this will earn Obama's incompetence and lack of effort a pass are delusional. Obama's willingness to fracture Washington even more for his idiotic health care "reform" that does nothing to fix what is actually wrong with healthcare will be an entirely different plank in the historians thesis of why Obama sucked. You never ever push through major orders from the federal government without at least some bipartisanship. Obama had to know better, but his greed to see his will done got the better of him. In general Obama's unwillingness to d the heavy lifting that the job demands will be his undoing so far as his legacy goes, this is already assured.

In light of the fact that most of the dislike of President Obama from the LEFT is a product of a perception that he was TOO WILLING to accommodate the right...and too willing to concede to them in negotiations (particularly on budget issues)...

...I find this charge to be questionable, Hawk.

At 77, I doubt I will be around to see what "history" thinks of Obama or this current congress...but I hope you are young enough to get a glimpse of how things head.

As you noted, it often takes "history" a long, long time to sort things out.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I'll go so far as to say if we had elected Hillary or any other white person there probably wouldn't be a Tea Party as we know it today.

Then you will go so far as to project your own prejudice (not of blacks but of conservatives) on others.

Sure, why not? It's been a learned prejudice and today's conservatives have been my teachers.

1 Reply

Ah Finn, the perfect example of today's conservative with his two main fallback positions. "It's not that Obama's black, it's his policies" and, " The press worships your Messiah Obama and gives him a pass on everything". Now Finn, don't forget to throw in that standard "Polly wants a cracker" occasionally, we all really like that one.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Let's see....

Actually, passing it with opposition united would be a greater accomplishment in a historical standpoint.

The R's repealing it later will look like complete asshats when they throw millions off insurance so I highly doubt they would be willing to commit that act of stupidity. But no one can accuse them of being smart.

The D's didn't change any Senate rules that would allow legislation to pass with only 51 votes. That would require the R's be the first to do that and that is after promising they wouldn't do it which would again make them look like asshats for all of history.

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

A "learned prejudice"?

Interesting. So people who live in proximity to African-Americans get to defend their prejudice by the assertion that it is "learned" and claim that blacks have been their teachers?

How is this any different than what you've written?

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

Only a left-wing drone such as yourself cannot contemplate that anyone who isn't happy with Obama's presidency, bases their dissatisfaction on policy rather than skin color. Such drones, obviously, believe that one is either an Obama supporter or a racist.

Sort of like the drones who felt that one was either a Bush supporter or a traitor.

You make this too easy.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I don't believe this at all, not even a little bit. People like you however that NEVER will recognize ANY positive qualities in him, and stick SO CLOSELY to the cliches, leave little doubt. Remember, and I realize it was a few years ago, that I wasn't an Obama supporter and presently have made no bones about the fact that I think we'd be better off if Hillary were President.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

I did not think about Obama's beliefs.

0 Replies

I Can't Stop Grinning

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know