On foreign policy, he has made no inroads on North Korean nukes, nor Iranian nukes. Sarkozy accused him of living in a "virtual world" wrt Iranian nukes. The Chinese(!) lectured him on budget policy. He recently announced that the Israel/Palestine issue was tougher than it looks. He is getting us out of Iraq, regardless of strategic consequences, and getting us into Afghanistan, regardless of strategic consequences. He cozied up to Chavez, who recently removed all pretenses of a free, liberal society from his government. Domestically, he inherited a deep recession, and (not wanting to let a crisis go to waste) used it as a rationale to let the Dems run a pork-laden stimulus through. He nationalized Chrysler and GM, made sure the unions that funded his election got taken care of (at our expense), and gave them positions on the boards. He assumed that the recession would, like most recessions, run its course and end after a reasonable time. He was wrong, and now realizes he needs to focus on the economy his second year. He still talks up cap-and-trade, a policy that raises the cost of energy in the US, and drives energy production to the 3rd world. He proposed a massive government takeover of healthcare insurance, which would cost hundreds of billions and have the effect of giving millions insurance cards, but not necessarily more healthcare. This was very unpopular, and he blames its failure on partisanship. Now, his party had the votes last year to push it through with no cooperation from the GOP, and its failure was due to Dems joining the Rep side of the issue, but this failure is somehow due to the GOP's recalcitrance. He pledged to close Guantanamo, but is backpedalling as he discovers that Guantanamo is not a very good answer for the problem of detained militants, but may be the best answer. He has gained moral superiority by banning waterboarding, but (surprising to me) allows a greater use of drone assassinations than ever before, killing hundreds last year. So we have a drifting economy, with a bunch of academics trying to figure out ways to get it growing while restructuring it into a form they like better. We have a foreign policy that confuses all and scares our friends. He's not doing a very good job. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, as he is the least experienced president we have had in many, many decades.
And just think about what you left out! Cabinet and position nominees from Van Jones to the Wise Latina, Sotomayor. Calling out a police officer, (who gave diversity lectures), for being a racist. Calling out Las Vegas, (not once but twice!), as if he hadn't taken a cozy junket or two! Spending his international capital in Copenhagen trying to win the Olympics for Chicago, (and being the first one eliminated). Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, (I mean "Seriously?"), the same week he increases troop levels in Afghanistan. These are little things individually, but taken collectively with the OP they amount to a trend you don't need the IPCC to "data correct" for.
And dont forget, leaving your "signature" issue in the hands of probably the most retarded congress in recent memory lead by Pelosi and Reid. And with a supermajority failing to get it passed. Then of all things blaming it on the republicans, who are the party of "no." Pretty tough to top this one. Failing to use any political capital over the summer and ultimately letting the wet dream of every liberal get flushed down the toilet like a used trojan condom.
Alright, I’ll play. Just so I am clear – since you wrote this list and had time to think about your criticisms, then the assumption is the list goes from your highest to lowest complaints about Obama.
And yet, I still don't want the guy he beat or replaced. Oh, and you've memorized the spin very well. Got "lectured" "Cozied up..." "Regardless of strategic consequences" (easy to say, not so easy to prove, but you really don't care much about that, you've got a laundry list!!! Oh boy!) "He has gained moral superiority by banning waterboarding, but (surprising to me) allows a greater use of drone assassinations than ever before, killing hundreds last year. " (Do you disapprove of this policy? You must if it adds to him "not doing a very good job.") "So we have a drifting economy, with a bunch of academics trying to figure out ways to get it growing while restructuring it into a form they like better. We have a foreign policy that confuses all and scares our friends" (Another bald assertion. How fun!!!!)
Pelosi is actually getting the BS passed that has no chance of making it through. If Obama ran the show he would get her *** into a reasonable/realistic policy line. Instead she jerks off to the far left with the fantasy bills she is passing. She is destroying the Democrats. Reid only wishes he could destroy them as well as she is doing. Obama is just spouting nothingness into teleprompters while nobody listens anymore. Oh, sure they listen to the tone, the dramatic effects he uses, his delivery, just not what he is actually saying. It should be an interesting year.
Roma doesn't ever seem to directly support the Democrats in his text, but it certainly seems like his "poop flinging" is reserved only for Republicans or conservatives. He works hard to maintain the image of non-partisan independence (even going so far as to call himself lunatic to avoid partisan associations) but his bitterness, concentrated as it is, might be giving him away.
You're as accurate and fun-loving as ever. I vote Dem and have stated so many times. I'm not a partisan hack, the Dems are not "my team." I don't live and die by the successes of failures of the Dems, they're just a better choice at the moment. A moment that offers poor choices. I think you can tell more about me from my Longhorn fanhood and degree than you can from my party. I suggest you work on another arcane debate topic and leave psychoanalysis or interpretation of what I may or may not be hiding to others more qualified or more familiar with me. My response was playfully self-deprecating rather than sneakily deceptive. Jokes are fun when they must be explained to the humorless. Or maybe you were projecting?
Sorry, not buying it. It's not so much an attempt at psychoanalysis as it is an attempt to reconcile the indirectness of your style. And I recognize that style because I spent 2 years (back in my immature youth) being a troll on Texags before they caught me. I walked that fine line between the pretense of dispassionate objectivity and the reality of being an enemy to the board. My only point is that you're more passionate than you want everyone to believe, and it's a passion that identifies with the liberal approach to American politics. That's how I see it. I could be wrong. Dealing with human beings isn't science.
So when you bite at TaylorTRoom with condescending remarks about his non-originality, it's all in good fun: "self-deprecating" humor. But when someone is critical of you, and points out the cracks in your facade, it's not quite as fun anymore. But I'll make sure to take note the next time you associate yourself directly with Democratic causes, since you claim that you've done so many times. Just out of curiosity: what do you believe in, specifically, that causes you to vote for Democrats?
Lone Star, that's a bad assumption about the comment order. Yes, the economy is the most important issue. No, Keynesian fixes are not proven, although the approach dovetails with the desire to pay off interests. A different approach to help the economy is to cut taxes, like Kennedy did and Reagan did. Sure, you hurt the budget (just like spending does), but it's easier to raise taxes later, post-recession, than it is to cut spending. Think about it- assume you have decided to borrow money to fund a deficit- what is the most productive way for that money to be applied- through targeted stimulus spending on unneeded roads and green technologies that venture capital is not interested in, or through an undirected application of taxpayers' increased income (due to lower taxes) on investments that were already close to being worth funding? The latter is the answer, although pols don't like it. After all, they didn't go to Washington to give power back. Back to GM and Chrysler. Remember, there are multiple sets of loans. The first set was converted into equity owned by Uncle Sam. We are into those companies for near $100 billion, all told. Everybody has suffered except the UAW. You know what's a good investment in this economy? Investing in Obama's election. Remember, he outspent McCain 3:1, thanks to the unions and trial lawyers...and who is being taken care of? Unions and trial lawyers! The healthcare bills were defended from all tort reform attempts. Back to the drones. I am uneasy with a NSA star chamber ordering kills outside of open discussion. I bet Dems would be uncomfortable with this if it were Bush pulling the trigger, and not Obama. It seems to me that dropping a bomb on somebody's house is worse than waterboarding them. Just my opinion. One last thing- I don't get the response that you believe Obama is doing better than McCain. The original post was never about comparing the two. It merely points out that it's hard to support a claim that Obama is doing a good job. I know we want him to do a good job, and we need him to do a good job. Idon't think he is.
It's looking more and more like the initial gamble on the economy- that the recession was normal, and that it could be kick started by borrowing and deficit spending- was a bad one. Above, Lone Star criticizes the Reagan tax cuts because of the deficits that were run (I would argue the deficits were caused by the Dems running Congress passing the spending bills), but they did spur an economic growth that kept debt as a percentage of GDP constant, while solving the unemployment problem and creating wealth. The Kennedy tax cuts worked wonders too. Is it too late for Obama to say he guessed wrong on the economy?
