Quit picking on Obama……
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
Jindal to Cheney: Lay off Obama
See everyone should lay off Obama until he does something really stupid, and so far he has not. We should not question the Presidents intentions, I have no doubt about his patriotism.
Jindal to Cheney: Lay off Obama
See everyone should lay off Obama until he does something really stupid, and so far he has not. We should not question the Presidents intentions, I have no doubt about his patriotism.
Jindal to Cheney: Lay off Obama
Ironsides, I read that news item before you posted it here. While it represents an admirable sentiment, I don’t think Jindal has done himself any good with the party’s right wing base. He will be perceived as a RINO, a wimp, a sellout by the right wing base, with no fire in is belly.
He may have done serious damage to his chances of winning the nomination I 2012. But he has earned my respect (for what it is worth).
I doubt that Obama has mentioned George Bush by name since his election. He may have said that he inherited a very difficult, very perilous situation; he inherited an economy which had tanked. But that is only telling the truth, I don’t think he has spent any time Bush bashing.
To give Obama credit, he rolled up his sleeve and got down to work, rather than playing the blame game. Whether what he has done works remains to be seen. But at least he gets credit for trying.
I don't think the right wing has a solid base, they have offered nothing yet. The extreme right was soundly defeated in the elections and though the people maybe moving more to the right, there not going to move that far.
He has approx. 4 years to make a national image, it is possible.
That's a moot point, it wouldn't have mattered whether Bush was the president or Jesus Christ was the president, the economic situation today would be basically the same. The President spends none of his time sitting in WAll St. or in banks looking over the shoulders of incompetent and unscruplous managers.
You do not think that the government (many Presidents, not any particular one) either thru neglect or direct intervention had anything to do with the economic collapse?
That's a moot point, it wouldn't have mattered whether Bush was the president or Jesus Christ was the president, the economic situation today would be basically the same.
That is not quite true, JLM. First, people tend to give the credit or blame to the President for whatever happens during his watch. So they blamed the economic slowdown on Bush and Republicans.
It is always difficult to pinpoint exactly what caused the economic collapse; it largely depends upon one’s preconceived bias, as to who is to blame. However, Bush was in charge. At the very least he should have been ready for unforeseen calamity, that is the job of a good politician.
Thus the first thing he did when he came to power was that he got rid of all the surplus and went into huge deficits. Then when economic collapse came, the deficits reached truly astronomical levels.
If Bush had continued with the prudent economic policies of Clinton (Bush had a rubber stamp Congress for six years, who did anything Bush asked them to do) and had been running a surplus in 2008 instead of huge deficits, USA would be in much better position to deal with the economic crises.
Personally, I think Bush deserves the lion's share of the blame for economic crises, for deregulation and lack of any oversight whatever on Wall Street (I think that is what created the Ponzi scheme of subprime mortgages). But even aside from that, he gets the blame for blowing away all the Clinton surplus and replacing it with huge deficits. And this when economy was doing well.
That is not quite true, JLM. First, people tend to give the credit or blame to the President for whatever happens during his watch. So they blamed the economic slowdown on Bush and Republicans.
It is always difficult to pinpoint exactly what caused the economic collapse; it largely depends upon one’s preconceived bias, as to who is to blame. However, Bush was in charge. At the very least he should have been ready for unforeseen calamity, that is the job of a good politician.
Thus the first thing he did when he came to power was that he got rid of all the surplus and went into huge deficits. Then when economic collapse came, the deficits reached truly astronomical levels.
If Bush had continued with the prudent economic policies of Clinton (Bush had a rubber stamp Congress for six years, who did anything Bush asked them to do) and had been running a surplus in 2008 instead of huge deficits, USA would be in much better position to deal with the economic crises.
Personally, I think Bush deserves the lion's share of the blame for economic crises, for deregulation and lack of any oversight whatever on Wall Street (I think that is what created the Ponzi scheme of subprime mortgages). But even aside from that, he gets the blame for blowing away all the Clinton surplus and replacing it with huge deficits. And this when economy was doing well.
Even if Bush were to blame (on paper) in reality it really has nothing to do with him. I doubt if Bush (or Obama) make any decisions beyond which tie to wear, without consulting a whole bunch of advisors. He would have been listening for financial advisors before doing any spending, not to mention that the bulk of the spending is done by department heads that have a free reign to spend up to a limit without having to go to a higher authority. Sure I'm in favour of faulting the boss or crediting the boss because it's his "watch"- but in reality it means very little. The WHOLE world is in recession (depression) and THAT has a whole greater effect on the U.S. than does the president.
Even if Bush were to blame (on paper) in reality it really has nothing to do with him. I doubt if Bush (or Obama) make any decisions beyond which tie to wear, without consulting a whole bunch of advisors.
It doesn’t work that way, JLM. You are right in that President listens to his advisors. However, he picks advisors who agree with his philosophy, with his views. So ultimately it is the President who decides policies.
Thus, I assume Bush picked advisors who didn’t think it was necessary to run a surplus, who thought that there is nothing wrong with giving tax cuts to the rich and running huge deficits (mainly because Bush thought that way) and who thought that any kind of regulation on Wall street is bad.
Similarly, Bush is prolife. So he picked advisors to advise him on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, morning after pill etc, who were strongly prolife.
So you re right, President probably does not sneeze without consulting his advisors. However, he picks the advisors, and he usually pick yes men, people who agree with him. So he is responsible.
It doesn’t work that way, JLM. You are right in that President listens to his advisors. However, he picks advisors who agree with his philosophy, with his views. So ultimately it is the President who decides policies.
Thus, I assume Bush picked advisors who didn’t think it was necessary to run a surplus, who thought that there is nothing wrong with giving tax cuts to the rich and running huge deficits (mainly because Bush thought that way) and who thought that any kind of regulation on Wall street is bad.
Similarly, Bush is prolife. So he picked advisors to advise him on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, morning after pill etc, who were strongly prolife.
So you re right, President probably does not sneeze without consulting his advisors. However, he picks the advisors, and he usually pick yes men, people who agree with him. So he is responsible.
I'm not diagreeing with anything you say, BUT we have no way of really knowing if Bush picked poor advisors or not BECAUSE had he have picked different advisors we still can't be certain the economic situation would have been any better, perhaps a little diffent or perhaps a little worse. We still don't know how bad the situation really is, apparently the bank crisis in the U.S. isn't as bad as first thought. There may be quite a diffence between the real world and the world as portrayed on the news.
''As for Iraq, the promise to end the war is turning into a Clintonian exercise in twisted diction. It all depends on what "withdrawal" means.''
You didn't object when Bush set in the troops, so why object now?
You didn't object when Bush set in the troops, so why object now?
I won't defend Obama on the deficit spending, but Obama's supporters appear to forget that he often said he will be more responsible and careful in getting out of Iraq than the recklessness and speed it took us to get involved in the first place.
I think Obama's own supporters will bring him down. They understand him less than do his opponents.
I think Obama's own supporters will bring him down. They understand him less than do his opponents.
I won't defend Obama's deficit spending as well because it is totally unnecessary. Bush, like his father and like Reagan, gave multiple trillions in corporate welfare to the wealthy. Therefore, they do not need any more money from the government.
Since the wealhy did not spend the money on needed projects, simply take it all back. This way there is no need to raise taxes or any need to increase spending.
Since the wealhy did not spend the money on needed projects, simply take it all back. This way there is no need to raise taxes or any need to increase spending.
"I think Obama's own supporters will bring him down. They understand him less than do his opponents."
I think Obama's supporters have already left him, probably a month after the election. Most were wide eyed college kids who found out that he could not just magically wave a wand and all the ills of the world would be fixed. (they all went back to school). He lost the ultra left liberal because what they wanted was of lower priority and would take years if at all to be enacted. (Social changes, jobs and housing for the poor etc.) The world has collapsed, and he is doing what he, not us thinks is the best way to get things back on track. The U.S. Banking system did prove itself resilient and has seemed to have bounced back and because of them it looks like we are on the way to recovery.
I think Obama's supporters have already left him, probably a month after the election. Most were wide eyed college kids who found out that he could not just magically wave a wand and all the ills of the world would be fixed. (they all went back to school). He lost the ultra left liberal because what they wanted was of lower priority and would take years if at all to be enacted. (Social changes, jobs and housing for the poor etc.) The world has collapsed, and he is doing what he, not us thinks is the best way to get things back on track. The U.S. Banking system did prove itself resilient and has seemed to have bounced back and because of them it looks like we are on the way to recovery.
Wasn't the US Supreme Court's decision after a long battle within the Florida's Supreme Court? Gore wanted there to be manual recounts within the counties that were heavily Democrat (Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia). Remember, that right after the Florida election ballots were finalized, there was instantly another electronic recount that finalized and produced the same results. If there we could get any further of a non-bias ballot counter, then it would be a machine. Seeing Democrat Counties scrounge for any remote chance of a vote was plain pathetic and scandalous. And even then, Broward completely finalized their manual recount, and same with Palm Beach and Miami-Dade (although not completely since there were 14, 000 votes left to be recounted in total). It's ironic because the only affect this manual recount had on the election results was that Bush's lead nearly tripled. The US Supreme court decision was made only after the Florida Supreme Court denied the 14,000 votes to be finalized. Quite frankly, I don't blame them. The manual recount in the heavily Democrat Counties only produced the same results that were conclusive. All the other Counties were known Republican electorates.
Well, then I suppose it's a shame that your opinion of him makes you neglect factual information.
I think this information can be verified by: Washington Post-ABC News Poll August 5, 2007 (washingtonpost.com) Bush's approval ratings weren't much different from Obama's.
Please bring to my attention whenever these issues dear to right wing Republicans were ever raised by George Bush Senior. Bush Senior came from the North Eastern part of United States were "Republicanism" has a very liberal tone. Don't confuse George Bush Senior, with Bush Junior who indeed was a "born again" Christian and vocalized these issues so important to right wingers. With respect to right wing ideologies, Bush Junior disagreed with his father on many levels.
During the Republican Primary, the two politicians who were challenging each other were Patrick Buchanan and Bush Senior. Although Bush Senior won the primary election, his image was destroyed. The liberal image of Bush Senior had a definite effect on opinion polls; Buchanan materialized the difference between true right wing ideologies and Bush Senior's.
NY Times is both reputable and unbias? That is the greatest claim I've ever heard on this forum and any forum I've attended. Maybe you're talking about their "unbias" approach to the Palestinian war? For example this picture: http://www.fraudfactor.com/images/mediafraud/ffNYTdistortion_c.jpg
This was a picture on a NYTimes article with the title " An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian on the Temple Mount." The caption was obviously showing that the police officer was an Israeli, brutally beating up a Palestinian. Now what was the truth? The man brutally beaten was an Israeli, and the offender was Palestinian, who ran once this same cop came to defend him. Liberal media outlets like the NYTimes are garbage at best.
That being said, I don't watch FoxNews, nor those other right wing websites (I don't even know they existed); information on the net is easy to tell from rubbish. Because if there are lies, like the one made by the NY Times, we have the opposition gladly contradicting them and exposing them. The free world works much better than you take it for. It's your beautiful utopia of government dominance where this "rubbish" goes by unnoticed.
The U.S. Banking system did prove itself resilient and has seemed to have bounced back and because of them it looks like we are on the way to recovery.
Ironsides, if that does happen (and I hope it does happen), that will be bad news for Republicans indeed. If economy improves, Republicans cannot take success in 2010 elections for granted.
Normally they would be expected to pick up around 25 House seats and 3 or 4 Senate seats in 2010. However, Republicans better get their act together (which they don’t have at present), otherwise the expected gains may not materialize if economy is on the mend.
Ironsides, if that does happen (and I hope it does happen), that will be bad news for Republicans indeed. If economy improves, Republicans cannot take success in 2010 elections for granted.
Normally they would be expected to pick up around 25 House seats and 3 or 4 Senate seats in 2010. However, Republicans better get their act together (which they don’t have at present), otherwise the expected gains may not materialize if economy is on the mend.
Obama never did pretend to have a magic bullet- he said fixing the economy would take a lot of work and years to do it- I specifically recall his saying that it might not be possible in one term. So anyone who was supporting him that figured it was going to be fixed in a couple of months is an abject idiot. Obama sadly doesn't have much control over who supports him. That is one of the problems of the democratic system- a "dumb" vote counts just as much as an "informed" vote and I'm not convinced that is Democratic.