Our President

[rigney]

I don't know how to do a poll, but in your honest opinion; how is President Obama doing in running our country? I'm a "Hill Billy" 'tweener, so there's no offense taken one way or another. And if my question is inappropriate, would a moderator please kick it to the curb!!

Edited June 5, 2010 by rigney

[insane_alien]

this is an international forum. barack obama may be the president of the US, but thats only 4% of the world.

Edited June 5, 2010 by insane_alien
errant y

[Pangloss]

I think it's about time we added another state north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Resistance is futile, Scotlander!

 

Oh sorry, Obama... I think he's doing a pretty good job under extremely adverse circumstances. It's quite a juggling act. I think he could be doing a lot better in his response to the oil spill, which is looking more like Katrina 2.0 every day, but as with Katrina there's no real "win" there, and if he works out other problems then it won't really matter in the end.

 

I am somewhat disappointed with his lack of bipartisanship and catering to the Reid/Pelosi Congress, and I think that's what got him into the most trouble in 2009 (seriously, how do you screw up a 60-seat majority??). But he's learning and he does keep reaching out to the right. He just needs to get better at telling the extremes to shove it where the sun don't shine.

[Mr Skeptic]

Other than his handling of the financial crisis I like pretty much everything else he's done. I kind of wish that he had done a better job with the health care bill (my idea is a moderate but entirely partisan bill, totally ignoring any Republicans that didn't want to actually cooperate rather than attempting (pretending?) to be bipartisan in the face of opposition (hostility?)). But I can understand that being a mess. As for the oil spill, I particularly liked his handling of it.

[Pangloss]

As for the oil spill, I particularly liked his handling of it.

 

From a tactical point of view he hasn't really done anything wrong, but from a political perspective it's a bit of a disaster, I'm afraid. He's been behind it, rather than in front of it. There's a lot he could have done to get in front of it, but he (or rather "they") didn't realize it was going to be such a big deal. I think that's actually a mistake -- from the beginning it seemed clear to me that this is something you "go big" on regardless of how big it actually turns out to be.

[padren]

From a tactical point of view he hasn't really done anything wrong, but from a political perspective it's a bit of a disaster, I'm afraid. He's been behind it, rather than in front of it. There's a lot he could have done to get in front of it, but he (or rather "they") didn't realize it was going to be such a big deal. I think that's actually a mistake -- from the beginning it seemed clear to me that this is something you "go big" on regardless of how big it actually turns out to be.

 

I agree with the overall assessment that his lack of being "in front" has hurt his reputation on this. While it's just a musing and not enough to draw a conclusion, I wonder if there is some advantage (perhaps deliberate) to avoid being too personally involved, so as to not over politicize the spill.

 

When this is plugged and we start slowly cleaning up the damage, the national dialog should be on examining how this happened, and how we solved it and our general practices in such matters. For the media to celebritize Obama's role for good or bad, or either party to turn it into Obama-spin would detract from learning anything useful from all this.

[Pangloss]

Well what he needs to be doing is living in New Orleans. For at least the last two weeks, and ongoing until the spill is resolved. Not listening to Paul McCartney sing "Michelle" to his wife. The moment it became clear that this was serious (at least two weeks ago), every single event should have been canceled. Every trip. Everything. You take it, as the newsies say, "wall to wall". You move the President and many major West Wing players right to the gulf coast area and operate a mini-White House right there. You have him on the beach pushing booms into place every single day, and when he's not moving booms he's listening to locals, working a boat, helping the Coast Guard, whatever. Every single day.

 

That would have been quite a momentous statement -- a real "change" in practice, and a very hard one for Republicans to criticize in light of Katrina. But I wouldn't have stopped there, I would have deployed every single stateside National Guard unit to the region (it's not as if they'd be standing around, since it appears there's more equipment than people to deploy it at the moment).

 

I would have also accepted every single proposal for cleanup. All of them. "Get started; bill us later, and we'll bill BP" would have been the line for the reporters. The Saudi scooper-tankers would have been out there, Kevin Costner would have been out there, everything. Consequences later.

 

Of course other events intrude, and you handle those. Instead of taking time out from dealing with everything else to fly to the Gulf, he should be taking time out from the Gulf to deal with everything else. You have him take time out from the Gulf to deal with Israel. You have him take time out from the Gulf to deal with immigration. You have him take time out from the Gulf to appoint a new spy chief. To take a look at the jobs report. And so on.

 

That may sound extreme, but it's how I would have handled it. I think an overwhelming White House response is how you get on top of this. The current response is underwhelming at best, and election-losing at worst, and it's clearly not working.

[padren]

That may sound extreme, but it's how I would have handled it. I think an overwhelming White House response is how you get on top of this. The current response is underwhelming at best, and election-losing at worst, and it's clearly not working.

 

I think I have to agree with you, that would have been far better. It's also one of those situations where literally every day counts, and throwing resources early (damn the consequences) would actually be warranted - we can throw a few hundred billion at wallstreet without blinking because "if we stop and blink the damage will be unparalleled" - but here we have clear, present and tangible damages and costs rising every day.

With the entire ecosystems is choking to death, I think your no-holds-barred approach would even be cheaper in the long run considering just the economic impact of the toxicity and die off.

[iNow]

Well what he needs to be doing is living in New Orleans. For at least the last two weeks, and ongoing until the spill is resolved. Not listening to Paul McCartney sing "Michelle" to his wife. The moment it became clear that this was serious (at least two weeks ago), every single event should have been canceled. Every trip. Everything.

Yeah, because then we could attack him for being so incompetent as to not be able to handle more than one thing at once. We could attack him for not having the best and brightest in roles of leadership driving this on his behalf. We could attack him for taking his eye off North Korea and Israel/Gaza and China and ad infinitum.

 

I disagree. I appreciate the spirit of your post, but it's not only extreme, it's unrealistic, and dangerously so.

 

In short, I don't find your suggestion that he basically go stay in a hotel in New Orleans for a few weeks and everything will be better to be a very compelling one, nor to really change ANY of the facts on the ground.

 

 

 

Here's a chronology of the response which they began in APR29:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/issues/Deepwater-BP-Oil-Spill

 

Here's the site the WH has dedicated to this issue:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill/

[ewmon]

I think Obama has done a commendable job, having inherited two ongoing wars, a failed world economy, a large national debt, etc. The Nobel Prize was a bit hokey, though.

[Genecks]

He has held up to the reasons I voted for him.

 

He has held up to the way I saw how a president should handle the military, foreign affairs, the economy, and arguing against others in the government who may be corrupt or attempt to put the power back into the rich and corrupt.

 

So, I think, on those grounds, he's doing his job.

Whether or not he's doing a poor/good job? I think he's attempting to do a good job.

If someone knew a sure-fire way to make things better with fairness in a shorter period of time, I'm sure he'd greatly consider it.

 

Some of my views have changed. I think he and congress should depress national wages. Making some money is better than nothing. I rather break even than go into debt. On the state side, which the president doesn't full control... I'm truthfully sick of the state of Illinois. The state determines the minimum wage. And in a time like this, keeping minimum wage on an upward scale doesn't do too much good for those with low socio-economic status. It creates large class-division. As such, I've been contemplating my leave from this state for many years. At the age of 18, I seriously considered moving to Texas.

 

I've always been against the war. As of late, I'm thinking we should just close down the war, save the money, and invest it back into America, perhaps in the form of grants.

 

So, if the money went toward research, you could hire more students and they could work, complete their degrees, lead to benefits for society, and/or so forth.

 

I think the costs of the war need to stop immediately.

 

My opinion since this war started was to let those around the war area take care of the war area.

Some people say there isn't a war anymore. Good. Then pull out the soldiers, decrease their wages, and so forth.

I'm sure many soldiers would be willing to accept lower wages if they knew they were not going to be in combat each week.

And you could always make them do something else. Make them fix the roads, build things, feed and clothe the poor, etc.. etc..

Maybe even do some weird lay-off system: Ask the active duty persons if they want to be reservists instead of active duty, and consider their time as reservists as part of their required time of serving.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Genecks

[Pangloss]

I think I have to agree with you, that would have been far better. It's also one of those situations where literally every day counts, and throwing resources early (damn the consequences) would actually be warranted - we can throw a few hundred billion at wallstreet without blinking because "if we stop and blink the damage will be unparalleled" - but here we have clear, present and tangible damages and costs rising every day.

 

With the entire ecosystems is choking to death, I think your no-holds-barred approach would even be cheaper in the long run considering just the economic impact of the toxicity and die off.

 

Exactly -- the aftermath is going to be expensive, but on the grand scale of things it's unlikely that it would be expensive in the way that wars or bailouts are expensive. Might as well do it right and be pro-active about it, rather than making sure all the Ts are crossed and the Is dotted.

 

 

In short, I don't find your suggestion that he basically go stay in a hotel in New Orleans for a few weeks and everything will be better to be a very compelling one, nor to really change ANY of the facts on the ground.

 

Sure, but we're just talking about political perceptions, not changing the facts on the ground. As you point out, the opposition party will always find something to attack, but he's clearly been "behind" this issue, and it's the response from liberals and his subsequent increase in activity that indicate this.

 

But certainly his trip today will help. Speaking of which, I'm off on my own trip to the Gulf Coast; see you guys in a week!

Edited June 5, 2010 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

That may sound extreme, but it's how I would have handled it. I think an overwhelming White House response is how you get on top of this. The current response is underwhelming at best, and election-losing at worst, and it's clearly not working.

 

I think he should have ignored it other than to say BP is footing the bill, although if needed he should have helped them acquire volunteers, grant permissions, or whatever to help cut through any bureaucracy that might be holding back treatment of the spill (such as the law that prevents the use of the skimmers).

 

That's how I would have handled it, albeit it would have been unpopular among the folks who hold the president responsible for everything that is wrong with the country.

[rigney]

insane_alien (Genius) Yesterday, 9:33 PM #2

this is an international forum. barack obama may be the president of the US, but thats only 4% of the world.

 

"Touche" insane_guy. Americans should begin to understanding that they can be secular and spiritual at the same time without being dictartorial from either direction.!! But also an equal opportunity "Ass Kicker " as the need arises.

Edited June 5, 2010 by rigney

[Pangloss]

That's how I would have handled it, albeit it would have been unpopular among the folks who hold the president responsible for everything that is wrong with the country.

 

You mean like Jon Stewart? He ripped into the President on Tuesday for being behind the issue, making exactly the same point I did, albeit more humorously.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-june-1-2010-arthur-brooks

 

(From 5:30 to 8:15.)

 

(And now I really gotta run!)

[Mr Skeptic]

Stewart was mocking him for being all "totally committed" and "won't rest until", and then not doing so. Of course, all politicians do this, as do almost all normal people.

[rigney]

Jon Stewart? An extremely over intelligent Provocateur. Love him because he simply plays the cards as they fall. A classical comedian with brain power!!

[swansont]

I'm sure many soldiers would be willing to accept lower wages if they knew they were not going to be in combat each week.

 

Not so much. Soldiers get combat/hazardous duty pay and possibly a family separation allowance, and that would go away if they weren't in combat (normal combat pay and family separation allowance totals about $500 a month). But an E-4 who has been in for more than 2 years (Army/Marine corporal, Navy third class petty officer) makes less than $24k in base pay.

[jackson33]

I don't know how to do a poll, but in your honest opinion; how is President Obama doing in running our country? [/Quote]

 

rigney; To preface my opinion in attempting an answer your question, very few Presidents were personally qualified to totally manage the duties of the Executive. Even in the beginning, most certainly in modern history, the person chosen has basically been the most popular and known person during a certain period, prior to being elected.

 

What makes a good President is an ability to attract the qualified and pick those that can do the management required and LEAD those people. With this in mind, he not only had very few qualified people to draw from, other than a couple from Clinton's Administration, but had only like minded associates during a rather brief political career, short legal career and acting of behalf of community organizers would have produce none. Then he has never personally lead anything before, is showing no such ability thus far, currently indecisive on many international fronts and following a social justice policy on most domestic issues.

 

On the poll thing; Maybe a good one would be simply grading to date, 'How do you grade President Obama Administration, so far' A, B, C, D, F, the choices. If you agree, maybe a moderator can enter the poll for you....