Voters' Obama Folly Coming Home to Roost

[Freemason]

So much for progressive enlightenment.

It's only been 7 weeks since the man whose resume fits nicely on the back of a postage stamp became the most powerful human being in the universe. As Presidents go, Barack Obama has proven at least one thing true: change is like the flip of a coin. Change can bring the best of times; change can bring the worst of times. And anyone over the age of twelve ought to have known that. Instead, 52% of the American electorate has run around like a bunch of howling ninnies for the past year chanting like a horde of Jim Jones' followers, who can't get enough of the poison kool-aid.

American Thinker: Voters' Obama Folly Coming Home to Roost (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/voters_obama_folly_coming_home.html)


Granted this is an opinion piece but if the time is taken to read it carefully it's hard not to see the point being made and agreeing with same.

[BackdoorJesus]

While I didn't vote for this president, he was fairly elected by a majority of voters so I'm willing to give him a shot out of respect for our electoral system.

Having said that, while I'm not really pleased with a lot of the decisions he's made thus far and I'm certainly not one of his Obamabots, I think it's probably way too soon to judge given the enormous number of challenges the guy needs to address.

[joerockhead]

He continues to lie, and do so blatantly and he does not care.

As for the new 410 Billion Dollar Budget with 8,000+ BS Earmarks for over 7 Billion dollars, he said we need to ensure they are valuable.
And he also said "He does not want to Bog down Congress with cleaning up the Budget".

WTF is Congress for?

And if Fannie OR Freddie, OR General Motors gets any more freakin Money from the Government, then the only thing we will ever see in our pockets is CHANGE!

(my opinion!)

[Freemason]

He continues to lie, and do so blatantly and he does not care.

As for the new 410 Billion Dollar Budget with 8,000+ BS Earmarks for over 7 Billion dollars, he said we need to ensure they are valuable.
And he also said "He does not want to Bog down Congress with cleaning up the Budget".

WTF is Congress for?

And if Fannie OR Freddie, OR General Motors gets any more freakin Money from the Government, then the only thing we will ever see in our pockets is CHANGE!

(my opinion!)


I read today where Freddie is going to ask for more money. GM has tanked to the point where they may come off the DOW.

As far as Obama goes I really think he just wants to play the role of president instead of being one. You ask what is Congress for tax and spend at this point.

[Krasch]

While I didn't vote for this president, he was fairly elected by a majority of voters so I'm willing to give him a shot out of respect for our electoral system.

Having said that, while I'm not really pleased with a lot of the decisions he's made thus far and I'm certainly not one of his Obamabots, I think it's probably way too soon to judge given the enormous number of challenges the guy needs to address.

Gotta agree here. He deserves the chance to do the right thing.

That said, Joerockhead's line about change in our pockets almost made me spurt milk out my nose. Good one. (Frakkin' "must spread around reputation"! Well maybe I don't wanna!)

[CD]

Regardless of whether Obama or McCain became the President this year, I told people that I would feel sorry for whoever took office. That person would inherit a whole mess of problems, and the other side of the winner would probably prematurely bash anything they did. I'm not going to say that he's batting 1.000, but if people were talking about 5 years of a slower economy before the inauguration, shouldn't we at least give him more then a few months before we rake him over the coals?

American Thinker: Voters' Obama Folly Coming Home to Roost (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/voters_obama_folly_coming_home.html)

Granted this is an opinion piece but if the time is taken to read it carefully it's hard not to see the point being made and agreeing with same.
Correction: it's an opinion piece by a conservative newspaper... did anyone in this entire country think they'd sing the praise of a liberal president? Of course he's doing bad in their opinion... I'd venture to guess that Fox News also thinks he's off to a bad start.

Anyway, there are a few things he's done that I totally agree with. He said teachers need to be judged on merit, and shouldn't remain teaching if they can't do a good job. Any of the resident Republicans here mention that in between his faults? That isn't a liberal position to have, but it's the correct thing to do. Teacher unions are killing us as a country, and I hope for long term fixes we get rid of them, and allow better people to bring up our children.

I am a firm believer in fiscal responsibility, but even when Bush was in office and Republicans controlled Congress, I wasn't 100% opposed to them. I just refuse to believe that there aren't a few earmarks that will actually help that particular area. Sure, the bridge to nowhere wasn't a good one, but a few of them targeted neighborhoods that would benefit tremendously, and offer tangible rewards. Also, I've seen that there were close to 9000 earmarks... can someone post up a link to the breakdown of those? I'd be interested in finding out how many are from Republicans and Democrats, how many and how much are from each state, and if any are generally considered decent stimulus and not wasteful. On the flip side, I'd still be willing to bet thousands are basically worthless projects.

[joerockhead]

I have not found one yet.....

Obama had not really honored many of his Campaign Promises, the Congress is running things (and they suck! - Both Parties!!).

If Congress wants GM and Ford and Chrysler to Sell their Coporate Jets, then Nancy Pelosi needs to give up her's!!!!!

[shiiboi]

The presidential inauguration was January 20, 2009.

That was 7 weeks ago.

Obama may turn out to be a good president, or perhaps he will suck. But after 7 weeks, it's impossible to predict what he will do. His administration is not even completely hired yet, confirmation hearings continue to go on.

George W. Bush did not accomplish anything significant until after the September 11th attacks, about 36 weeks into his presidency.

Declaring Obama a loser now is just partisan B.S.

I'm not affiliated with a party, I remain fiercely independent. After careful thought, a review of Obama's & McCain's policy positions, and a fact-finding mission reviewing everything each candidate wrote and spoke about, I made the decisison to take a risk and vote for Obama.

What swayed me was his 'big picture' view of the world, as explained his his books, especially "The Audacity of Hope." Obama cooly recognizes that short-term problems must not interfere with the long-term plan, a position I support, and which has been lacking since Ronald Reagan. Bush Sr., Clinton, and W. all were 'reactors' and short-term actors, and I firmly believe that's what got us into the mess we're in now.

My mind remains open until we are at least into Obama's second year.

[Krasch]

Obama cooly recognizes that short-term problems must not interfere with the long-term plan, a position I support, and which has been lacking since Ronald Reagan. Bush Sr., Clinton, and W. all were 'reactors' and short-term actors, and I firmly believe that's what got us into the mess we're in now.

My mind remains open until we are at least into Obama's second year.

Damn straight!

[CD]

I saw this post on CNN's Political Ticker... It was in reference to Jon Stewart ripping into Cramer. LINK HERE (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/13/white-house-approves-of-cramer-smackdown/)




So now we have the White House commenting on a Comedy Central show! How fabulous that they have time for such nonsense!
I agree that Obama should pare down the focus and cease trying to be all things to all people. He won the election already, it's over. Trying to be the jack-of-all-trades just ensures he's going to suck at all the tasks he's taken on.

He needs to cut it back so that he can give the remaining items decent atention and care, and do an exemplary job with them.

Ok, so let me get this straight... Carole is upset that Obama has 30 minutes of free time in his day. Krasch thinks that Obama is working too hard, and should focus on fewer things...

1) If Obama was to focus only on the economy, Republicans would rip into him for not doing more for the long term. I suppose there is no pleasing his detractors.
2) It doesn't say that Obama saw the show... but I would hope that something that major WAS watched by at least someone in his administration and talked about. It lets me know that he has his large ears to the lifebeat of America.
3) We all know how much Clinton and W Bush seemed to age in their 8 years, and not having a second of free time is too much to ask for any president we elect. I think we all can agree that it's a stressful job, and I don't blame Obama (or Bush when he was in office) for spending a little time each day with family and/or relaxing after a tough day.

I'll go ahead and say that we need to stop all this partisan bullshit. Even I thought Bush was doing a decent job up until he switched over to Iraq, but that was over 2 damn years of no major complaints from me. Sure I had a few small things I didn't agree with, and I can understand if you guys feel the same. But a lot of these new posts against him, just seem to me like there are a bunch of people here who aren't giving him a chance.

/ my $0.02

[Krasch]

Ok, so let me get this straight... Carole is upset that Obama has 30 minutes of free time in his day. Krasch thinks that Obama is working too hard, and should focus on fewer things...

1) If Obama was to focus only on the economy, Republicans would rip into him for not doing more for the long term. I suppose there is no pleasing his detractors.
2) It doesn't say that Obama saw the show... but I would hope that something that major WAS watched by at least someone in his administration and talked about. It lets me know that he has his large ears to the lifebeat of America.
3) We all know how much Clinton and W Bush seemed to age in their 8 years, and not having a second of free time is too much to ask for any president we elect. I think we all can agree that it's a stressful job, and I don't blame Obama (or Bush when he was in office) for spending a little time each day with family and/or relaxing after a tough day.

Yeah you got it prety much straight.

The real serious right-winger Republicans (Big R not small R) will not go for anything Obama does, just as the real hardcore lefties out there were loath to say anything good about Bush.

Obama is never going to be their friend, so trying to appease them is doomed to failure. He therefore should not waste valuable time trying.

It's not that I think he's working too hard exactly, but that he needs to cut back on the scope and hone in his focus. Trying to do 30 things when you only really have time to do 10 only results in 30 half-assed things. The state of the economy is simply too important right now to risk doing a half-assed job.

I'd rather see him stick to much fewer items, put in the same amount of work, and do a really bang-up job on them. THEN move on to other tasks. He might also find that focusing on the really critical stuff now reduces the number of tasks he's left with in the long term.

And this is coming from a would-be fairly right wing Republican, at least I would be if I lived in the USA.

He's not at all who I'd have picked, but that don't mean I want him to screw things up. The situation is too dire for that. If he's got the job anyway, he might as well do it right.

[CD]

It's not that I think he's working too hard exactly, but that he needs to cut back on the scope and hone in his focus. Trying to do 30 things when you only really have time to do 10 only results in 30 half-assed things. The state of the economy is simply too important right now to risk doing a half-assed job.

I'd rather see him stick to much fewer items, put in the same amount of work, and do a really bang-up job on them. THEN move on to other tasks. He might also find that focusing on the really critical stuff now reduces the number of tasks he's left with in the long term.
1) How much time does it take the President to do 10 things a day? How much time does it take him to do 30 things a day? Unless you can give me exact numbers, I don't believe that he doesn't have time to focus on the things he's doing. Remember, he also is putting in advisers and a staff for a reason.
2) He might also find that doing a good job now on the larger picture allows him or the next President to have a much less stressful 4 years.

[Krasch]

1) How much time does it take the President to do 10 things a day? How much time does it take him to do 30 things a day? Unless you can give me exact numbers, I don't believe that he doesn't have time to focus on the things he's doing. Remember, he also is putting in advisers and a staff for a reason.
2) He might also find that doing a good job now on the larger picture allows him or the next President to have a much less stressful 4 years.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. BTW the numbers were arbitrary.

You could be right. He might not be overextending himself on the number of tasks he's trying to take on.

I HOPE you're right, because we're likely to be in real trouble if you're wrong. That's why I'd prefer to see him err on the side of caution if anything. Admittedly, I could be too cautious here.

[ravenshrike]

I find it funny that everybody thinks Obama will be able to hack it when he hasn't held a steady job in his life. If he makes it all four years, this will be the longest actual job that he's worked at. Between the fact that he's been the left wing's bitch for every piece of legislation so far along with the fact that he has about as much diplomatic class as a rabid dog, at least when it comes to our actual allies, why people think he's suddenly going to tap into unseen depths is beyond me. That's not even mentioning the fact that his treasury department is still swiss cheese because anybody who actually knows anything about economics can tell by his actions that he doesn't have a fucking clue and neither does Geithner.

[shiiboi]

...his treasury department is still swiss cheese because anybody who actually knows anything about economics can tell by his actions that he doesn't have a fucking clue and neither does Geithner.
No, the problem is that anyone who has been involved in the businesses that typically provide treasury staff have been ass-deep in corruption and collusion in the bad behavior that led to the economic meltdown. It's tough to find candidates for treasury positions that can pass the pre-approval vetting process.

In the end, the Obama adminstration will have to relax its standards for appointees. The republican leadership has already signalled that they won't block his appointees on political grounds.

[ravenshrike]

No, the problem is that anyone who has been involved in the businesses that typically provide treasury staff have been ass-deep in corruption and collusion in the bad behavior that led to the economic meltdown. It's tough to find candidates for treasury positions that can pass the pre-approval vetting process.

Bullshit. The candidates are vetted BEFORE their names are released publicly, which means that Obama's people still don't know how to vet people, or that they don't consider the problems to be egregious during the vetting. What is tough to do is to find anyone remotely qualified for the position who isn't a lobbyist, thus meaning they have to have an actual connection to their field, and is willing to sign on with the Obama craziness who isn't an avowed communist. That's because a dart flinging monkey could choose better plans.

[shiiboi]

Bullshit. The candidates are vetted BEFORE their names are released publicly, which means that Obama's people still don't know how to vet people, or that they don't consider the problems to be egregious during the vetting.
Pardon me, but the names leak out in the PRESS during the 'secret' vetting process. When the candidates are found to have 'problems,' the adminstration denies they were every in the running, or the candidate publicy bows out for 'personal' reasons.
What is tough to do is to find anyone remotely qualified for the position who isn't a lobbyist, thus meaning they have to have an actual connection to their field, and is willing to sign on with the Obama craziness who isn't an avowed communist. That's because a dart flinging monkey could choose better plans.
So only lobbyists are qualified to be in government? Now you're just talking nonsense. And when you start talking about 'communists' you're way off base. There is nothing about Obama's political philosophy nor policymaking plans that is even remotely communist. Give me a break.

I will grant you that when Obama set a high bar for government appointees during the campaign he hadn't thought through how it would complicate his administration-building process.

[ravenshrike]

So only lobbyists are qualified to be in government? Now you're just talking nonsense. And when you start talking about 'communists' you're way off base. There is nothing about Obama's political philosophy nor policymaking plans that is even remotely communist. Give me a break.
He swings and he misses. What I pointed out was that given that lobbyists are off the list, that leaves the truly competent of the field, who know that Obama's plans will only harm the economy, the corrupt and/or airhead idiots who seem to have all these problems, and actual communists, who would certainly applaud Obama's actions given to where they may lead to. Oh, and I can't forget the fascists who are having wet dreams over how this is bringing things into alignment to their ideology at least on a small scale.

[shiiboi]

He swings and he misses. What I pointed out was that given that lobbyists are off the list, that leaves the truly competent of the field, who know that Obama's plans will only harm the economy, the corrupt and/or airhead idiots who seem to have all these problems, and actual communists, who would certainly applaud Obama's actions given to where they may lead to. Oh, and I can't forget the fascists who are having wet dreams over how this is bringing things into alignment to their ideology at least on a small scale.

WTF? So you repeat, only lobbyists are qualified for government posts? I'm done.

[bobburgster]

While I didn't vote for this president, he was fairly elected by a majority of voters so I'm willing to give him a shot out of respect for our electoral system.

Having said that, while I'm not really pleased with a lot of the decisions he's made thus far and I'm certainly not one of his Obamabots, I think it's probably way too soon to judge given the enormous number of challenges the guy needs to address.

Nice to read an opinion like yours. I was getting a little concerned wondering if there was anyone here who could be honest about the time needed to make changes in a govt. like ours.
Hell, it took Bush 8 years to run it into the ground.