Is Obama the worst president ever?
- Thread starter sombraa110
- Start date
And he will be judged in the very same manner that every other president has been.
I don't understand what you're driving at here; other than the civil war, when has America not been in one piece?
Again, what's your point? Obama knew exactly what he was signing-up for when he ran. All that this diatribe offers is a pre-fabricated excuse for Obama not generating the results/promises that he based his platform on.
The Democrats had full control of both houses... They didn't need the support of the Republicans - yet, he still wasn't able to get 100% traction... The Dems could have rammed any legislation through the house(s). The reason that he's had trouble is that he can't get full support from his own party.
This no longer has anything to do with Bush or the Republican party - really man, get over it already and see things for what they are.
Obama is not a risk taker, just another poor man who is becoming rich at the expense of the U.S., getting his share before the bubble pops. Obama came into this job with just an average income, nothing special and even that was not verifiable. Now between his wife and his salary they have made over 6 million dollars, not bad for ones 1st year on the job. Obama has not made a sincere effort to do anything outside what he thinks is best for us. Obama thinks he is better than the country.
In hindsight it's probably fair to say that Bush screwed quite a few things up- the most important that comes to my mind is his lack of timely action in the Katrina disaster. Whatever his mistakes were re 9/11 and 03/17/03 at the time he took positive action virtually no one complained or criticised him, so I think criticism now, as valid as it may be, is a little hypocritical. As a president he probably failed in many respects, but as a man he stood tall, always doing what he said he would, and telling people what he would do. He certainly doesn't take crap.
That is how politics works. Republicans will oppose anything Democrats want to do. That is the way for them to get elected.
Look at the Wall Street reform they are debating in USA. The Republican leader, Senator McConnell, met two dozen Wall Street executives last week. After the meeting, he and other Republicans came out strongly against Wall Street Reform. Senator McConnell also is the biggest recipient of Wall Street campaign money.
Now that economy is showing every sign of mending, watch for Republicans to talk the economy down. As election nears, Republican rhetoric will intensify, come November, we will be in recession again, then in depression (according to Republicans). If Republicans win the election in November, if they gain control of one or more chambers, the depression will miraculously disappear and we will be back in recovery again.
It is all politics.
People are always saying that Bush lacked action, what exactly was Bush's lank of action with Katrina? Local governments are the first responders, and the governor is the only one who can request federal aid. So what if the director of Homeland Security was a political appointee with no knowledge of what to do, even he had to wait till the governor called for help. The 300 school bus's were left behind because of local officials. The only time order was restored was when General Russel L. Honore' arrived in New Orleans. To quote: Mayor Ray Nagin was quoted on a radio interview September 1, 2005, saying: "Now, I will tell you this -- and I give the president some credit on this -- he sent one John Wayne dude down here that can get some stuff done, and his name is Gen. Honoré. And he came off the doggone chopper, and he started cussing and people started moving.
With 9/11 Bush more or less stood aside and let Rudy Giuliani handle it, we didn't need more than one boss when it happened. Rudy was at his finest hour then.
Bush did a fine job. Who would have done better?
With 9/11 Bush more or less stood aside and let Rudy Giuliani handle it, we didn't need more than one boss when it happened. Rudy was at his finest hour then.
Bush did a fine job. Who would have done better?
It has everything to do with Bush and the Republican Party. Much as Republicans like to blame the recent economic meltdown on Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy and FDR, it was caused by Bush and the Republicans.
Obama inherited an economy which was on life support, which was teetering on the edge of the abyss of depression. He has been in power for little more than a year and already the economy shows every sign of turning around, all the economic indicators are pointing to economic recovery.
And it was all done against the background of intense Republican opposition to anything he wanted to do. It is in the interest of Republicans that the economy slide into depression come November, that is how they hope to win.
So in the face of intense opposition, in the face of visceral hatred, he has been able to fix the economy, to put it on the right track. The achievement is nothing short of impressive.
But then this has been a pattern for more than 30 years now. Republicans make a huge mess, Democrats clean it up. Conservatives make a huge mess, Liberals clean it up.
And you seemed to have forgotten one very important thing. What have the Democrats done to help the Republicans when they had a chance? Nothing. It is a wonder the Republicans want nothing or little to do with them now. Wall Street is only being held together by the Democrats, something like paint coating a rusted out metal plate, remove the paint and it falls apart..
Now that is an astounding assertion. Obama hasn’t done anything other than what he thinks is best for the country? What would you have him do? Should he have done what the thought was bad for the country? Is the how Republican presidents and Republican politicians operate, they do what they think is bad for the country?
Now, no doubt that is how Bush operated, it was almost as if he asked the question, what is bad for USA? And then proceeded to do it, whether it was invasion of Iraq, or getting rid of all the regulations on the Wall Street (thereby causing the biggest meltdown since the depression) etc. But I would think you would applaud Obama, if he did what the thought was best for the country.
No doubt that is what the Republicans think. But that is not what Americans think. I think Katrina marked the turning point in the fortunes of Bush and Republicans, started their slide downwards in the opinion of Americans, resulting in devastating losses in 2006 and 2008.
Republicans are adamantly opposed to any Wall Street reform; they want to leave things as they are, so that their Wall Street buddies could cause another meltdown. All the 41 senators are opposed to Wall Street reform.
If I were Harry Reid, I would bring the bill to the floor for the vote, make Republicans filibuster it, talk it to death endlessly. That will give Democrats a potent weapon in the November election.
If Republicans spend a few weeks filibustering the Wall Street reform, they will be firmly established in people’s mind as the party which is in the pockets of Wall Street (and Senator McConnell is the biggest recipient of Wall Street money).
That will work better for Democrats than actually passing the reform package before the election. When in the election campaign every Republican politician is forced to defend Wall Street, that will go a long way towards minimizing Democratic losses.
This is one instance where democrats should actually welcome a Republican filibuster.
I think he should have Resigned before appointing those who helped bring on this crisis into positions of authority. There were many new faces out there who could have done a better job. I would have preferred anybody over Tim Geithner, Paul Volker, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, anybody but members of the old guard corporate elite that he chose to pick from. He did not change anything, just same ol, same ol.
Who should have resigned, Obama? Exactly when should he have resigned? The day he got elected, the day he was inaugurated, the day the going got tough? Exactly when should he have resigned? And woud you rather have Biden as the president, not Obama?
The day he found out there was nothing he could change without using his dictatorial powers. (appointing people to posts when congress is on vacation or taking a rest) If he really wanted change, he could have done it.
No with Biden
SJP: They again you didn't answer the question 'Why", I can understand the people being frustrated with what happened, but it is like with the volcano in Iceland, people are mad at the airlines. Does it show the stupidity of the people? Who knows.
Another reason not to approve of Obama.
Guess who's back to help with Supreme Court pick
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Staffer admitted communist Mao Zedong among 'favorite political philosophers'
Dunn stepped down from her post in November amid controversy fueled when WND posted a video of Dunn that captured her disclosing to the Dominican government that Barack Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled."
That video subsequently was quoted widely by the news media.
Guess who's back to help with Supreme Court pick
[/FONT]
Guess who's back to help with Supreme Court pick
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Staffer admitted communist Mao Zedong among 'favorite political philosophers'
Dunn stepped down from her post in November amid controversy fueled when WND posted a video of Dunn that captured her disclosing to the Dominican government that Barack Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled."
That video subsequently was quoted widely by the news media.
Guess who's back to help with Supreme Court pick
[/FONT]
Just cannot trust him.
Poll: 4 of 5 Americans don't trust Washington
By: LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press
04/19/10 10:41 AM EDT
WASHINGTON — America's "Great Compromiser" Henry Clay called government "the great trust," but most Americans today have little faith in Washington's ability to deal with the nation's problems.
Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America's ills, the survey found.
The findings illustrate the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.
Released Sunday, the survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively affects their daily lives, a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years.
This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.
"The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. "There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it."
Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it's interfering too much in state and local matters. The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.
About half say they want a smaller government with fewer services, compared with roughly 40 percent who want a bigger government providing more. The public was evenly divided on those questions long before Obama was elected. Still, a majority supported the Obama administration exerting greater control over the economy during the recession.
Only twice since the 1950s has public skepticism dipped this deeply — from 1992 to 1995 during which time it hit 17 percent, and 1978 to 1980, bottoming out at 25 percent. The nation was going through economic struggles during both of those periods.
"Trust in government rarely gets this low," said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey. "Some of it's backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on."
And, he added: "Politics has poisoned the well."
The survey found that Obama's policies were partly to blame for a rise in distrustful, anti-government views. In his first year in office, the president orchestrated a government takeover of Detroit automakers, secured a $787 billion stimulus package and pushed to overhaul the health care system.
But the poll also identified a combination of factors that contributed to the electorate's hostility: the recession that Obama inherited from President George W. Bush; a dispirited public; and anger with Congress and politicians of all political leanings.
"I want an honest government. This isn't an honest government. It hasn't been for some time," said self-described independent David Willms, 54, of Sarasota, Fla. He faulted the White House and Congress under both parties.
The poll was based on four surveys done from March 11 to April 11 on landline and cell phones. The largest survey, of 2,500 adults, has a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points; the others, of about 1,000 adults each, has a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points.
In the short term, the deepening distrust is politically troubling for Obama and Democrats. Analysts say out-of-power Republicans could well benefit from the bitterness toward Washington come November, even though voters blame them, too, for partisan gridlock that hinders progress.
In a democracy built on the notion that citizens have a voice and a right to exercise it, the long-term consequences could prove to be simply unhealthy — or truly debilitating. Distrust could lead people to refuse to vote or get involved in their own communities. Apathy could set in, or worse — violence.
Democrats and Republicans both accept responsibility and fault the other party for the electorate's lack of confidence.
"This should be a wake-up call. Both sides are guilty," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She pointed to "nonsense" that goes on during campaigns that leads to "promises made but not promises kept." Still, she added: "Distrust of government is an all-American activity. It's something we do as Americans and there's nothing wrong with it."
Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who won a long-held Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in January by seizing on public antagonism toward Washington, said: "It's clear Washington is broken. There's too much partisan bickering to be able to solve the problems people want us to solve."
And, he added: "It's going to be reflected in the elections this fall."
But Matthew Dowd, a top strategist on Bush's re-election campaign who now shuns the GOP label, says both Republicans and Democrats are missing the mark.
"What the country wants is a community solution to the problems but not necessarily a federal government solution," Dowd said. Democrats are emphasizing the federal government, while Republicans are saying it's about the individual; neither is emphasizing the right combination to satisfy Americans, he said.
Poll: 4 of 5 Americans don't trust Washington | Washington Examiner
Poll: 4 of 5 Americans don't trust Washington
By: LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press
04/19/10 10:41 AM EDT
WASHINGTON — America's "Great Compromiser" Henry Clay called government "the great trust," but most Americans today have little faith in Washington's ability to deal with the nation's problems.
Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America's ills, the survey found.
The findings illustrate the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.
Released Sunday, the survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively affects their daily lives, a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years.
This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.
"The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. "There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it."
Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it's interfering too much in state and local matters. The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.
About half say they want a smaller government with fewer services, compared with roughly 40 percent who want a bigger government providing more. The public was evenly divided on those questions long before Obama was elected. Still, a majority supported the Obama administration exerting greater control over the economy during the recession.
Only twice since the 1950s has public skepticism dipped this deeply — from 1992 to 1995 during which time it hit 17 percent, and 1978 to 1980, bottoming out at 25 percent. The nation was going through economic struggles during both of those periods.
"Trust in government rarely gets this low," said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey. "Some of it's backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on."
And, he added: "Politics has poisoned the well."
The survey found that Obama's policies were partly to blame for a rise in distrustful, anti-government views. In his first year in office, the president orchestrated a government takeover of Detroit automakers, secured a $787 billion stimulus package and pushed to overhaul the health care system.
But the poll also identified a combination of factors that contributed to the electorate's hostility: the recession that Obama inherited from President George W. Bush; a dispirited public; and anger with Congress and politicians of all political leanings.
"I want an honest government. This isn't an honest government. It hasn't been for some time," said self-described independent David Willms, 54, of Sarasota, Fla. He faulted the White House and Congress under both parties.
The poll was based on four surveys done from March 11 to April 11 on landline and cell phones. The largest survey, of 2,500 adults, has a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points; the others, of about 1,000 adults each, has a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points.
In the short term, the deepening distrust is politically troubling for Obama and Democrats. Analysts say out-of-power Republicans could well benefit from the bitterness toward Washington come November, even though voters blame them, too, for partisan gridlock that hinders progress.
In a democracy built on the notion that citizens have a voice and a right to exercise it, the long-term consequences could prove to be simply unhealthy — or truly debilitating. Distrust could lead people to refuse to vote or get involved in their own communities. Apathy could set in, or worse — violence.
Democrats and Republicans both accept responsibility and fault the other party for the electorate's lack of confidence.
"This should be a wake-up call. Both sides are guilty," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She pointed to "nonsense" that goes on during campaigns that leads to "promises made but not promises kept." Still, she added: "Distrust of government is an all-American activity. It's something we do as Americans and there's nothing wrong with it."
Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who won a long-held Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in January by seizing on public antagonism toward Washington, said: "It's clear Washington is broken. There's too much partisan bickering to be able to solve the problems people want us to solve."
And, he added: "It's going to be reflected in the elections this fall."
But Matthew Dowd, a top strategist on Bush's re-election campaign who now shuns the GOP label, says both Republicans and Democrats are missing the mark.
"What the country wants is a community solution to the problems but not necessarily a federal government solution," Dowd said. Democrats are emphasizing the federal government, while Republicans are saying it's about the individual; neither is emphasizing the right combination to satisfy Americans, he said.
Poll: 4 of 5 Americans don't trust Washington | Washington Examiner
So you wanted Obama to resign. But since that would have made Biden president, I assume you also wanted Biden to resign. Next in line would be Pelosi. Would you be happy with Pelosi as president? I assume you would also want Pelosi to resign.
Sadly for you, the line of ascension does not come down to Joan of Arc or Rush 'drug addict' Limbaugh, no matter how many Democrats you want to resign. No doubt if you have your choice, every Democratic politician will resign, you will have a one party system ,the Republican Party, and it will be paradise in USA.
You will have to wait for Heaven on earth just a little longer.
Last edited:
Perhaps you and the Republicans should introduce a constitutional amendment. The amendment will state that only Republicans are allowed to run for presidency. Then you won’t have to wish for mass resignations by the Democrats, so that a Republican may become president.
Or if you still want to carry on with the charade of elections (you must have democracy, after all), the amendment could say that if a Democrat is elected to presidency, he must resign as soon as he is elected and the defeated Republican candidate be declared the winner. Won’t that be great? It will assume perpetual rule by Republican Party.
"Barack Obama’s deep bow to the emperor of Japan and earlier bow to the Saudi Arabian king is so deeply offensive to America’s history and traditions that it cannot and must not be explained away in any fashion."
We've gone over this already as Nixon bowed to the Japanese emperor and Bush kissed the Saudi King.
We've gone over this already as Nixon bowed to the Japanese emperor and Bush kissed the Saudi King.