Props for Ottomaton: Should Petreus and McChrystal be Fired by Obama?

Just to clarify, to what party do the "blue dogs" belong?

 

and does that party need the other party to get health care passed?

 

I think you'll be surprised by the final bill.

Nothing he is going through so far was unexpected. It was always going to be controversial. His poll numbers were always going to drop when details started getting discussed. A health care bill - probably with a public option - will pass later this year or in January. The week health care passes, his and Democrats' generic poll numbers will jump. We knew all this 6 months ago - it's how the whole thing works. Obama even said before all this started that health care would look dead multiple times along the way. This is exactly how any controversial bill's process happens.

What specific unexpected problems is he having?

That's certainly true. LBJ was willing to do all sorts of unethical things to accomplish what he wanted. You can argue whether that was good or bad; but I won't try to suggest that Obama is anything like LBJ. Totally different methods and styles.

 

Thumbs, This is from a post that Northside Storm made in another thread.

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1281

 

There are few, if any, concrete results from any of the initiatives, proposals, talks or actions. The only real accomplishment was the stimulus package, which, unfortunately, was Bush-initiated. Gitmo probably will remain open, pundits openly argue over the wisdom of his diplomatic efforts, the Iraqi and Afghanistan campaigns are in disarray, the domestic agenda is in tatters -- I just can't agree with citing a successful presidency thus far.

 

Thumbs:

Once again, you're being intellectually dishonest. You made a claim, and are now desperately trying to either ignore the counterpoints or move the goalposts. Lamesauce.

 

do you agree with this or not?

• Moving to end the war in Iraq and ensure that it no longer dominates all other American national security interests;

 

thumbs, you seem to have set a standard for Obama that no President has ever or could ever meet, then determined he didn't meet it, and then decided he has failed for not meeting the ridiculous standard. It's as though you expected Iraq/Afghanistan to be wound down immediately, his whole domestic agenda to pass in months, the economy to be fixed overnight, etc.

These things didn't go wrong overnight, and they won't be fixed overnight. The administration never suggested otherwise.

 

Bush was moving to do that as well. Moving towards a goal does not mean one has accomplished that goal.

 

If you were as patriotic and moderate as thumbs, maybe you would understand his concerns.

I've got lots of gripes about Obama, but generalized statements of failure/inability or conjecture of what "might" occur down the line don't strike me as rational, factual, or of honest pedigree.

 

All the Obama worship may have led me to expect too much.

 

The problem I see with your thesis, and it is just my personal conjecture, is that there very well may be even more blue dog Democrats in 2010 coupled with more Republicans.

 

I like how Republicans sarcastically call him the Messiah then b**** when he can't smite his political opponents with bolts of lightning and further his agenda.

 

No sh_t.

If this is an indicator of failure-

Then no US president has ever had a successful foriegn policy.

 

I can't rep you, but that's clever.