The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So your argument is that the leader of our free nation said the media partially affected his administration's decision-making and you're OK with that? We've obviously had a sharp downturn in what is required of our nation's leader. Thankfully, the criticism I made appears to be in the majority, with multiple liberal news makers leveling the same criticisms. Real leaders don't even partially let something like that affect their decisions.

Unfortunately Obama is the first politician to let the media influence the handling of staff.

Look, Vilsack made the wrong decision, but he tried to act in good faith. Breitbart acted in bad faith in an attempt to destroy this woman and the NAACP. I'm not happy with how the admin danced, but Breitbart and Fox were the ones who wrote the music.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

I don't understand your beef. He's admitting that Vilsack made a rash decision based on something they didn't fully investigate.

Agree with this. It should have ended right here. 'My administration made a rash decision and we take full responsibility for that mistake'. That's what a leader does and he doesn't lose any face by taking full responsibility.

Originally Posted by miked

On a side note, I think Brietbart and the right-wing media deserve a chunk of blame here as well (as does the left-wing media and the administration). I don't understand how that guy thinks he's a journalist. How hard is it in most political rallies to find a 20 second clip that, out of context, clearly makes the wrong statement. What he did isn't journalism, and I love how he says he never meant it to come back to her. According to his interviews, he did it out of retribution to the NAACP because they've come out hard lately against the racist elements in the tea party and their denial of it and refusal to distance themselves from it (except the actions of last week). So in retaliation, he edits a speech down to 20 seconds to change the context of what somebody was saying...and Fox News (and eventually the rest of the media) eats this up??

That's what you should be equally outraged about.

I don't disagree that it was wrong to edit down this speech. But the blame being passed by Obama and the attention it continues to bring is only further deteriorating his positions in these matters. These guys look like a bunch of right-wing buffoons who have no pull if you ignore them. By continuing to bring them in the limelight with the blame game, they continue to legitimize organizations that honestly aren't all that legitimate when it comes to these matters. The PR handling by Obama's administration on these situations has been deplorable at best. It's going to keep happening as long as he refuses to take the high road and act like a real leader.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agree with this. It should have ended right here. 'My administration made a rash decision and we take full responsibility for that mistake'. That's what a leader does and he doesn't lose any face by taking full responsibility.



I don't disagree that it was wrong to edit down this speech. But the blame being passed by Obama and the attention it continues to bring is only further deteriorating his positions in these matters. These guys look like a bunch of right-wing buffoons who have no pull if you ignore them. By continuing to bring them in the limelight with the blame game, they continue to legitimize organizations that honestly aren't all that legitimate when it comes to these matters. The PR handling by Obama's administration on these situations has been deplorable at best. It's going to keep happening as long as he refuses to take the high road and act like a real leader.

Every admin battles unfriendly media. By your definition there hasn't been a real leader since at least before Lincoln.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by rowech

If people aren't strong enough to investigate something and make a rash decision because of the press, they have no business being in power positions. No matter what level we're talking about.

Exactly. I'd be fired from a low-level management position for making a move this short-sighted, yet we actually have people defending a similar move by appointed officials in some of the most powerful positions in our nation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Every admin battles unfriendly media.

But few have done it this poorly. As I said before, if he fully takes the blame for the quick error in judgment, it's no skin off his back. By passing the buck to the media, he drastically weakens his position.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Exactly. I'd be fired from a low-level management position for making a move this short-sighted, yet we actually have people defending a similar move by appointed officials in some of the most powerful positions in our nation.

Who is defending the firing?

This is another in a long list of stories that the vast majority of the country doesn't give a shit about. These political storms only matter to the people that already are very engaged in politics and likely have their mind made up about who they support.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But few have done it this poorly. As I said before, if he fully takes the blame for the quick error in judgment, it's no skin off his back. By passing the buck to the media, he drastically weakens his position.

Yes, because if Breitbart hadn't edited the video, and Fox News hadn't given it any coverage, then the NAACP would still have been duped, and Vilsack would have just called her out of the blue and still asked for her resignation.

Vilsack screwed up. I don't see anyone defending him. But clearly the kernel of the matter was the wholly irresponsible excuse for journalism exhibited here. Just another example of how ratings are driving the news narrative, not content.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The PR handling by Obama's administration on these situations has been deplorable at best. It's going to keep happening as long as he refuses to take the high road and act like a real leader.

You mean like how the admin took the high road during the whole faked ACORN tapes episode, and were roundly criticized for not getting involved?

You mean like how the admin took the high road while Glenn Back took years old quotes out of context and created so much bad press that people resigned?

So he's considered a weak and ineffectual leader if he doesn't respond to faked crisis invented by a portion of the media that has all but said their purpose is to make effective governing as difficult as possible.

And then he's considered a weak and ineffectual leader if he does respond to faked crisis invented by a portion of the media that has all but said their purpose is to make effective governing as difficult as possible.

If you think he is a weak and ineffective leader, then you will try to fit the narrative from any situation to justify your view.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd be fired from a low-level management position for making a move this short-sighted

??? I've seen plenty of people fired for far more bullshit reasons than this, in the corporate sector no less. I'm sure many, if not most, of us have. Try building your arguments without the use of unsupported hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But few have done it this poorly.

The 2nd half of Bush I's administration. The first two and last two years of the Clinto administration (the first two months in particular were brutal). The last, what, six years of Bush II's administration?

You want to paint Obama as some sort of historical aberration, but your arguments are routinely undone by even a cursory understanding of recent history.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More frustrating hypocrisy from the man who pledged to have an open administration, yet they tried everything in their power to cover up their role behind the Libyan bomber release.......

White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi | The Australian

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The 2nd half of Bush I's administration. The first two and last two years of the Clinto administration (the first two months in particular were brutal). The last, what, six years of Bush II's administration?

You want to paint Obama as some sort of historical aberration, but your arguments are routinely undone by even a cursory understanding of recent history.

The last term of Bush II is the only one that I'd even consider a fair comparison. The rest doesn't come close.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

More frustrating hypocrisy from the man who pledged to have an open administration, yet they tried everything in their power to cover up their role behind the Libyan bomber release.......

White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi | The Australian

I'm confused as to what's so controversial about the letter. It is clear that the US completely opposed his release. However, if he were going to be released then the US opposed him returning to Libya.

So what happened was pretty much exactly the opposite of everything that was requested in the letter.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

More frustrating hypocrisy from the man who pledged to have an open administration, yet they tried everything in their power to cover up their role behind the Libyan bomber release.......

White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi | The Australian

I don't know if this is a legit news source or not but if so, this is absolutely horrible. No excuse...period.

[larrymcg421]

Have you guys even read the article? That headline is basically a flat out lie...

In the letter, sent on August 12 last year to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials, Mr LeBaron wrote that the US wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned in view of the nature of the crime.

[JPhillips]

I'm somewhat agnostic on whether the letter is a big deal, but it drives me crazy that news organizations aren't putting the source documents on line when they write stories. I get not putting the whole letter in the story, but provide a link and let us see if the letter is what it's purported to be.

One of the many reasons I won't shed a tear fr the dying newspaper industry.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Have you guys even read the article? That headline is basically a flat out lie...

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

"Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."



How is that not supporting the release? If you're going to do one or the other, we would rather have him released?

I'm guessing it has something to do with him being released to a Muslim country but where was the effort to work something out to make sure he stayed locked up? He was supposed to live 3 months...he's now been alive for 11 months? It's unbelievably fishy all the way around.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by rowech

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

"Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."



How is that not supporting the release? If you're going to do one or the other, we would rather have him released?

The letter suggested a conditional release where he would have to remain in Scotland. If that was done, then he wouldn't have had his hero welcome at home and the conditional release could have been revoked if it was discovered that his condition wasn't quite so dire.

And I imagine that people would have gone apeshit if the guy was given a prison transfer to a Muslim country. How long do you really think Libya would have kept him in prison?

The US gave two suggestions...

Number 1 suggestion - He should NOT be released.
Number 2 suggestion - If he is going to be released, then it should be conditional where he has to remain in Scotland.

Neither suggestion was followed. So to say the US backed anything that was done is a flat out lie.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The letter suggested a conditional release where he would have to remain in Scotland. If that was done, then he wouldn't have had his hero welcome at home and the conditional release could have been revoked if it was discovered that his condition wasn't quite so dire.

And I imagine that people would have gone apeshit if the guy was given a prison transfer to a Muslim country. How long do you really think Libya would have kept him in prison?

The US gave two suggestions...

Number 1 suggestion - He should NOT be released.
Number 2 suggestion - If he is going to be released, then it should be conditional where he has to remain in Scotland.

Neither suggestion was followed. So to say the US backed anything that was done is a flat out lie.

There should have been option #3...somehow he is killed on the way to the airport. The fact this guy is free for even a day is pathetic.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

More frustrating hypocrisy from the man who pledged to have an open administration, yet they tried everything in their power to cover up their role behind the Libyan bomber release.......

White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi | The Australian

Cover up what role? Every article I read on this said that the U.S. tried to persuade them not to release him. Then said that if that wasn't an option, they'd prefer him to stay in Scotland. What are they covering up here?

And it's funny you had to post an article from an Australian paper to find a headline that misleading. Then again, it's not like you found the article. It's the link being used at the right-wing hate sites that you claim to never read.

Site Explorer - Search Results (these are the pages on the web linking to it)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yes, because if Breitbart hadn't edited the video, and Fox News hadn't given it any coverage, then the NAACP would still have been duped, and Vilsack would have just called her out of the blue and still asked for her resignation.

Vilsack screwed up. I don't see anyone defending him. But clearly the kernel of the matter was the wholly irresponsible excuse for journalism exhibited here. Just another example of how ratings are driving the news narrative, not content.

MBBF is just regurgitating talking points. You aren't going to get any independent thought out of it.

But Obama's administration does deserve blame. They made a decision because they were afraid of a biased cable news network and some hate mongerer running a news website. Sorry, if some guy who is one step away from wearing a pointy white hat on his head causes you to fire someone because he posted a video on his website, you are cowards.

His administration has let the media determine the narrative. They are so scared of feeding this anti-white narrative that Fox News and company are trying to portray, that they make rash and stupid decisions off of it. Bush was a complete fuck-up, but at least his fuck-ups were his own doing. He didn't do them because some hate sites told him to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cover up what role? Every article I read on this said that the U.S. tried to persuade them not to release him. Then said that if that wasn't an option, they'd prefer him to stay in Scotland. What are they covering up here?

And it's funny you had to post an article from an Australian paper to find a headline that misleading. Then again, it's not like you found the article. It's the link being used at the right-wing hate sites that you claim to never read.

Site Explorer - Search Results (these are the pages on the web linking to it)

LOL - awesome

[JPhillips]

Here's an interesting look back at the Reagan admin and conservative dissatisfaction in 1981. From the Washington Monthly:

Just six months after Reagan's inauguration, was the "honeymoon" really perceived as over between him and the "new right"? A friend of mine dug up the article Krauthammer referenced, and it's almost amusing to read nearly three decades later.

It ran on July 21, 1981 (obviously, no link available), and it came in response to conservative outrage over the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For some of the most vocal leaders of the New Right movement, the nomination was the latest in a series of slights and insults they have suffered from Reagan advisers which raise questions in their minds about whether the president is really their kind of conservative.

"The White House slapped us in the face," says Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail expert. "The White House is saying you don't have a constituency we're concerned about. We don't care about you."

The "New Right" was defined, at the time, as breaking with the Goldwater old-guard and expanding the GOP with outreach to the fledgling religious right and use of "sophisticated campaign techniques," such as direct mail.

And six months in, the leaders of this faction weren't happy. The O'Connor nomination made them livid, and conservatives grew all the more frustrated when, despite an aggressive campaign involving "letters and telegrams," the right couldn't even find Republican senators willing to come out publicly against the nominee. (O'Connor was confirmed 99 to 0.)

But the anger and frustration was more expansive than one high court nomination. "In terms of having any real influence with the Reagan administration, we just haven't had any," Howard Phillips, at the time the head of the Conservative Caucus, said. "All they've done is throw us a few bones to keep the dogs from biting their heels."

The right was angry when George H.W. Bush, perceived as a moderate, was added to the 1980 ticket. Conservatives were angrier still when James Baker became Reagan's chief of staff -- a man activists on the right considered overly pragmatic and insufficiently conservative.

And by this time 29 years ago, conservatives could hardly contain their disappointment. Leaders on the right began complaining regularly that they "won the election, but lost the White House." Paul Weyrich questioned whether the relationship between his conservative allies and the Reagan administration was "salvageable."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cover up what role? Every article I read on this said that the U.S. tried to persuade them not to release him. Then said that if that wasn't an option, they'd prefer him to stay in Scotland. What are they covering up here?

And it's funny you had to post an article from an Australian paper to find a headline that misleading. Then again, it's not like you found the article. It's the link being used at the right-wing hate sites that you claim to never read.

Site Explorer - Search Results (these are the pages on the web linking to it)

Or even more amusing is that you claim that I said that I never read the Drudge Report. I've always said that I usually check that site and the Huffington Post on a regular basis. If you're going to make a point, at least make a correct one.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The last term of Bush II is the only one that I'd even consider a fair comparison. The rest doesn't come close.

Is this because the media in 1990-1992, 1992-1994 and 1998-2000 were too different to today to provide a valid comparison? Or because suggesting that such a comparison might have validity would undermine your goal of portraying Obama as the most incompetent President ever?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here's an interesting look back at the Reagan admin and conservative dissatisfaction in 1981. From the Washington Monthly:

You don't win 49 states if you're primarily concerned with appeasing the most extreme members of your party (or even if you're obsessed with appeasing the base of your party, like politicians are today).

It seems like the GOP remembers Reagan's success, but not much about how he achieved it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here's an interesting look back at the Reagan admin and conservative dissatisfaction in 1981. From the Washington Monthly:

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: Ronald Reagan could not with the GOP nomination today.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't win 49 states if you're primarily concerned with appeasing the most extreme members of your party (or even if you're obsessed with appeasing the base of your party, like politicians are today).

It seems like the GOP remembers Reagan's success, but not much about how he achieved it.

As much as I dislike Obama's policies, it can't be said that he's obsessed with appeasing his base.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: Ronald Reagan could not with the GOP nomination today.

His opposition to proposition 6 would have immediately DQ'd him.

[Greyroofoo]

Also he once supported abortion.

[JPhillips]

I feel for him, but this surely won't help Ken Buck win the GOP nomination in CO:

"Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?"

[larrymcg421]

Why I'll always be a Deaniac. He's one of the few who really gets it:

No More Apologies -- It's Time to Stand Up for Our Convictions

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I feel for him, but this surely won't help Ken Buck win the GOP nomination in CO:

You mean the same guy who said voters should back him over his opponent "because I do not wear high heels"?
Female Colorado Senate candidate bashes Republican primary opponent for 'high heels' dig - latimes.com

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here's an interesting look back at the Reagan admin and conservative dissatisfaction in 1981. From the Washington Monthly:

There is a huge difference in the timing of the article. That was 6 months into Reagan's presidency. The economy was still tanking, and his first big appointment to the Supreme Court was center-right.

Obama is a year and a half into his presidency, he has had much more time to accomplish his goals.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There is a huge difference in the timing of the article. That was 6 months into Reagan's presidency. The economy was still tanking, and his first big appointment to the Supreme Court was center-right.

Obama is a year and a half into his presidency, he has had much more time to accomplish his goals.

Reagan had a lower approval at this point in his presidency and didn't really start to climb until the economy picked up after the midterms.

edit: Reagan started 1983 with a 35% approval rating.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

PLEASE make this happen. This will by far be the biggest change passed by this Congress if they can get it done. It would have a huge impact on how things are done.

Momentum For Senate Filibuster Reform Builds

[JPhillips]

I'd love to see it changed ASAP, but if they can't do it for the next session I'd be willing to support a compromise where it goes into effect with the 2014 or 2016 Congress.

In the end I doubt you can get a majority of Dems, but the GOP would flip it in a heartbeat if it helped them.

[albionmoonlight]

2016 seems far enough out that both parties could make a decision about this without knowing whether they would be in the majority or not. Nate Silver is probably the only guy who knows which party will control Congress in 2016, and we can just make him promise not to tell :-)

I'd love it if they made it time-limited. You need 60 votes to pass legislation initially, but then you only need 50 votes after, say, 30 days. That would keep a minority of 41 from holding up the business of the country forever. But it would also give the minority a month to build up popular support against legislation and keep 51 senators from passing something before it can be fully vetted.

If, after a month-long media blitz, the minority still can't keep 51 senators from voting on something, then the something is probably not that bad.

[Flasch186]

I disagree with the change. Just because youre the party in power doesnt mean should should change the rules for your betterment. I was against it when the gOP was in power and started changing rules for their betterment and Im against it now with the Dems in charge.

[SirFozzie]

Oregon political movement adopts a 4chan slogan.

Tea Party vs 4chan. Can we hope for a double KO?

[panerd]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[stevew]

I agree that if you're going to filibuster, you need to get the cots out and keep going.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I disagree with the change. Just because youre the party in power doesnt mean should should change the rules for your betterment. I was against it when the gOP was in power and started changing rules for their betterment and Im against it now with the Dems in charge.

I agree. That's why I think that the Senate should make the change, but not have it take effect until 2016. That way, neither party can expect to be in charge when the rule changes.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Reagan had a lower approval at this point in his presidency and didn't really start to climb until the economy picked up after the midterms.

edit: Reagan started 1983 with a 35% approval rating.

No argument. The difference is that Reagan's core started to see things turn around in late '82 (due to the economy). I'm not sure that Obama has hit bottom yet.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then you win, then they laugh at you some more.

Fixed to represent American politics.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

His opposition to proposition 6 would have immediately DQ'd him.

And the fact he raised taxes in so many areas.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And the fact he raised taxes in so many areas.

Lots of folks at the time, the center-right included, were accepting of those tax cuts.

1.) Reforming his previous Tax Cut by reducing it by 1/3.
2.) Increased the gas tax to counter the deficit.
3.) Tax reform aimed at stopping businesses from using loopholes to avoid taxes (it generated some $50B) and so I guess that's raising taxes. Really I think he just made folks pay what they were already supposed to.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Lots of folks at the time, the center-right included, were accepting of those tax cuts.

1.) Reforming his previous Tax Cut by reducing it by 1/3.
2.) Increased the gas tax to counter the deficit.
3.) Tax reform aimed at stopping businesses from using loopholes to avoid taxes (it generated some $50B) and so I guess that's raising taxes. Really I think he just made folks pay what they were already supposed to.

Don't forget the big FICA tax that's been paying for both party's spending over the bast twenty-five years.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well remember, tax hikes are only evil if they're on rich people and pay for social programs. If they fall mostly on the middle class and pay for a huge defense budget and tax cuts for the 1%, do it!

Let's try not to forget that the rich already pay taxes.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well remember, tax hikes are only evil if they're on rich people and pay for social programs. If they fall mostly on the middle class and pay for a huge defense budget and tax cuts for the 1%, do it!

What party or candidate has the platform that taxes should fall "mostly on the middle class"?

[JPhillips]

In the case of the FICA fix in the eighties it did fall primarily on the middle class. IMO that tax and the way the funds were diverted into the general fund by both parties is the worst government injustice of the past thirty years.