I don't think it's about being a pleaser. I think it's more about wanting to maintain his stature. He doesn't want to be tied to anything that doesn't work to his advantage. That's obviously true of anyone, but he takes it to the extreme. He doesn't want to be the face of this healthcare legislation because he doesn't want any of the heat. And really it has worked very well for him. Even when there is high disagreement in the polls over policies he supports, he doesn't take the hits on a personal level.
yeah, that "bring it on" rhetoric is what we need to get back to. I'll agree that he could have provided more leadership on healthcare, but what is exactly wrong with how he's handled Iran? Iraq? or Afghanistan. Iran has been developing nuclear weapons under our watch for the last decade, but Obama comes into office and he gets criticized for not immediately being tough on that situation. some of the criticism from the right is down right embarrassing considering what you supported the last eight years
did i even say anything about bring it on? who freaking people are so dense and short sighted its hilarious and sad. if you are too blind to see that BO is not a strong decision maker, i.e. wishy washy, then i don't know what to say other than try getting off the company line and look at things objectively. that's a good point. His best attribute is that people seem to like him on a personal level.
I know you claim to be bipartisan (LOL), but we all know you've never criticized the other guy, so we know you liked that leadership style
What about Iran earlier in the year where it took him a week to speak out on a pretty clear case? Iran is running wild as ever - now - would a Bush policy be better or worse? I think the point is that it would be the same. Iran is still marching forward and nothing has been done to slow them down thus far. Bush foreign policy was a failure - but I don't see Obama having made much progress. On Middle East peace, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, GW - all seem to be in the same exact place. Maybe a year isn't long enough - but geez, wouldn't you have expected to see some movement on one of these fronts? It's legit criticism. Now you could argue that in the first year, no one can accomplish anything. But that's not where Obama set the bar - he set the expectation that he was going to sweep in there and change washington politics. But none of that has come to fruition. It may be too early to judge - but I am not impressed. I'd still have voted for him knowing what I know, because I can't imagine McCain to have been any better, and that crazy woman he put in as his running mate ruined him as a man of integrity for me.
More to the point, what will he do now? Iran just announced that they will contruct 10 more enrichment facilities, a big, hairy **** You! to the world. They are clearly on a course to build atomic weapons and are only interested in buying time until they have those weapons. That has become clear to the meanest understanding. So what does the world do? What does President Obama do? How long do we "talk?" Until the first successful test by Iran and the entire situation becomes moot?
So Deck would you like to suggest a course of action? Because I don't think there isn't much the US can do. We lived with a nuclear USSR until it's change came internally, and we likely will have do the same again.
Not officially but as we all know the President can exert a fair amount of political process on the writing and passage of a bill. The problem with Obama was that early on in the process he didn't even spell out to Congress what he was looking for in the bill. Anyway if you are going to reduce the President's role in the process down to the Constitutional minimum then why support Obama on his stances on legislative issues in the first place?
I'm not saying Obama has been perfect and clearly there have been times he could've been more decisive or at least more timely. That said on Iran he has done probably more than the last Admin did. He's brought the Russians on board in regard to diplomatic pressure towards Iran something that the last Admin was able to. Iran though is a tough nut to crack and short of war I'm not sure how much more Obama could do to get them to reform. I frequently criticized Obama supporters during the campaign about the vague rhetoric of Change and the idea that Obama would somehow revolutionize DC. I never bought that so maybe that is why I'm not in general disapointed in him. If you expected things to completely turn around in the first year of Obama's presidency I would say that was very unrealistic but if you look at what has been accomplished in the first year this has been a very productive Presidency so far whether you agree with what has been done or not.
I think this is a problem with Obama, and most Presidents, is that in many ways perception trumps reality. He has been pretty decisive. He was decisive about the stimulus package and about closing Gitmo. In fact his critics blasted him for making those decisions too quickly.
this isn't a freakin football team, these problems that this country faces aren't going to be solved by deciveness. I'm not saying its been perfect but these are complicated problems (specifically Afghan, Iran, and Iraq). On healthcare he could have provided more vision on what he wanted to see in legislation. but even then, he's dealing with wide ranging views in his own party. if any kind of legislation comes to pass its success whether you agree with healthcare reform or not. So even though most of us agree that it was probably a mistake to try to let congress work this out themselves, if it they get something passed, even that point becomes moot. to me Obama's flaws come out more on topics like him giving the speech to school children. while that was feigned outrage as usual from the right, they did have a point on his lesson plan being too much about Obama. In that sense Obama can sometimes be out of touch it seems from what people want out of their president, but on real issues, we still have to remember what the situation was that this guy walked into.
I think he's had about as good a first year as could be imagined (if we're calling it at the quarter pole). The economy trumped everything in terms of urgency and importance. Obama responded with the same model adopted by just about every other country, and that would have been adopted by the GOP -- spend, spend, bail, bail. It seems to have been successful. I can't say he was particularly brilliant here -- since everyone else did the same -- but he certainly didn't screw it up. But given the time and resources that issue consumed it's pretty impressive the progress he's made on healthcare -- about as loaded a domestic issue there is. One that's been avoided since the Clintons got shut down. ++++ would support again.
it is odd that some of his most quick decisions are some of he ones that i feel were the worst. I think the stimulus was a turd and he also tried to rush the healthcare thing through. If anything, healthcare reform would be something that you would spent a great deal of time on rather than making trying to get it rushed through as he initially did.
Arguments against the economic stimulus are simply not credible at this point, as pretty much every single mainstream economists agrees that, as promised, it has worked somewhat. The only relevant argument at this point is that it should have been larger - that is a very different question than what the anti-stimulus people were claiming earlier this year.
