Is Obama a good POTUS?

[JohnB]

While the topic might start a war it isn't actually intended as such. And as an Aussie I don't have a dog in the US election fight.

 

Compared to Bush II there simply isn't as much about Obama in the MSM outside the US. (Or at least not down under) This leaves one with the impression that he's rather lack lustre and colourless with no real convictions.

 

It also seems that in the early part of his term the Democrats had the Congress, Senate and Presidency and still couldn't achieve anything really earth shaking or worthwhile. Is that an accurate impression? Note I'm not asking about a comparison to his opponents later in the year as it's getting more and more obvious that his opponents are in need of new coats. The ones with the overlong arms.

 

So, is he a good President? Has his first term been a success or not?

[zapatos]

Like most presidents I feel he is a mix of good and bad. I believe his biggest problem is lack of leadership. It is hard to blame it all on him during times of hyper-partisanship, but he was not able to get any of his ideas past the Republicans. Even when he had both houses he could not get the Democrats to come together as a team.

 

In areas where he is able to act alone I feel he has done quite well. This includes foreign policy and his balanced use of the military.

 

I'm not sure if I'll feel the same way in 10 years. I despised Bill Clinton the whole time he was in office but would vote for him in a second if he could run again.

 

Overall I'd say he has been a good president.

Edited August 23, 2012 by zapatos

[Phi for All]

I agree with zapatos, except for the Clinton thing. I'm the opposite, I loved him while he was in office and then later despised some of the things he did that I feel helped lead us to where we are now.

 

Obama has done some great things, especially with what he was given. If the presidential "race" can be thought of as a relay, then each president hands off the baton to the next, and poor Obama did his best not to grimace at the slimy, dirty, chewed up stick Bush II slapped into his palm. He ran with it, and to his credit he tried to keep from tearing things apart. He could have used his early clout when he had all that steam behind him, as well as Congress. I think the Republicans fully expected him to, and were poised to stall his momentum in any way they could. I think that's why the Tea Party got funded by the Koch Bros and came out so aggressively against a tax plan that actually benefited most of the people who were rallying against it.

 

And perhaps Obama's biggest mistake was NOT using that early clout. He tried too hard to bring both sides together to pull the country back from the brink. He failed, imo, to undo the damage done by Bush II in a way that would make everyone appreciate the difference in his approach. In just four years, he lost his party the advantage it had when so many people realized they'd supported an idiot for two terms, and the country desperately needed to change. Obama failed to realize that liberal intellect is no match for conservative fear when the Democrats and Republicans both are being influenced too heavily by special interests.

 

Obama invited the Republicans to dinner at his house and they brought take-out, and Obama thought a good host shouldn't be offended. I think he was wrong about that.

[ecoli]

His continued abuse of the bill of rights/ american privacy citizens to wage a war against terror outweighs any potential benefits, IMO. More of the same, more of the same.

[zapatos]

His continued abuse of the bill of rights/ american privacy citizens to wage a war against terror outweighs any potential benefits, IMO. More of the same, more of the same.

I feel he probably abused rights when he had a US citizen killed without due process. Will you please expand a bit on his other abuses of citizen rights?

[swansont]

And perhaps Obama's biggest mistake was NOT using that early clout. He tried too hard to bring both sides together to pull the country back from the brink. He failed, imo, to undo the damage done by Bush II in a way that would make everyone appreciate the difference in his approach. In just four years, he lost his party the advantage it had when so many people realized they'd supported an idiot for two terms, and the country desperately needed to change. Obama failed to realize that liberal intellect is no match for conservative fear when the Democrats and Republicans both are being influenced too heavily by special interests.

 

Obama invited the Republicans to dinner at his house and they brought take-out, and Obama thought a good host shouldn't be offended. I think he was wrong about that.

I think that the right's reticence to compromise was masked by having a democratic majority for 2 years and being able to get some things done hurt him. He wasn't prepared for a house willing to sit on its hands for two years for the sole purpose of unseating him.

 

Whether he was good or not is going to depend on what yardstick you use, and an honest evaluation of what he's done. e.g. despite the current claims that he can't campaign on the economy and he made things worse, that the stimulus didn't work, and it's quite obvious that this isn't true (7.5 million jobs lost before stimulus took effect, job creation afterwards, even with a do-nothing congress). But the tag of "good president" is one of perception, not one of fact.

 

Obama is a liberal so the right hates him, and in reality more of a centrist and unlikely for the far left to think too highly of him. So I think he will be negatively judged in terms of what he hasn't done that the left wanted him to do instead of what he's been able to do despite opposition willing to go quite far to stop him. I agree the view will need to be taken a decade or more down the road, and I think the issues of gays in the military and marriage will be in a much clearer light by then, in the sense of a "The opponents were on the wrong side of history, and why did it take so long for this to happen, anyway?" kind of way.

[ecoli]

I feel he probably abused rights when he had a US citizen killed without due process. Will you please expand a bit on his other abuses of citizen rights?

 

Extending the Patriot act, using surveillance drones on citizens, signing the National Defense Authorization Act, spying on citizens using the NSA's data processing center and using private firms to avoid warrants, prosecuting gov't whistleblowers (wikileaks cases), blocking freedom of information requests.

 

More here: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/obamas_dismal_civil_liberties_record/

[John Cuthber]

I agree that Obama's just not in the news as much as Bush was but I don't see that this is true

"Compared to Bush II there simply isn't as much about Obama in the MSM outside the US. (Or at least not down under) This leaves one with the impression that he's rather lack lustre and colourless with no real convictions."

 

It leaves me with the impression that he has screwed fewer things up.

The media don't report "the president did something sensible today".

 

BTW, take a bow for choosing to describe the guy as "colourless".

[zapatos]

Extending the Patriot act, using surveillance drones on citizens, signing the National Defense Authorization Act, spying on citizens using the NSA's data processing center and using private firms to avoid warrants, prosecuting gov't whistleblowers (wikileaks cases), blocking freedom of information requests.

 

More here: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/obamas_dismal_civil_liberties_record/

Ok. I understand how privacy is being eroded. I guess I was thrown by your statement that he is abusing the bill of rights. As long as what he is doing is legal I don't see how he could be viewed as eroding our rights under the constitution.

[iNow]

Obama is a liberal so...

I don't really think he's very liberal. This doesn't strike me as accurate. Perhaps relative to the batshit crazy paste eating screaming banshee right extremists he might be described as liberal, maybe... but then again by that metric so would Ronald Reagan. TBH, by nearly any other metric he's actually quite a bit right of center.

 

My impression is that he's managed to do a fairly excellent job overall given the hand dealt him, a situation made incredibly worse by a do-nothing obstructionist opposition who are using parliamentary tactics in a non-parliamentary system to stall any and every proposal he makes, but I agree that a bit more leadership or "pizzazz" from him might have allowed more to get done despite the obstacles he faced.

[ecoli]

Ok. I understand how privacy is being eroded. I guess I was thrown by your statement that he is abusing the bill of rights. As long as what he is doing is legal I don't see how he could be viewed as eroding our rights under the constitution.

 

Amendment 4, 9 & 14, section 1 have been interpreted as a general right to privacy from State and (due to 9) federal governments.

[zapatos]

Amendment 4, 9 & 14, section 1 have been interpreted as a general right to privacy from State and (due to 9) federal governments.

Unfortunately 'privacy' is a very general term. It seems to me that if Obama takes an action that erodes some aspect of rights we believe are contained in the term 'privacy', and his actions are ruled to be legal, then this newly defined (and more limited) definition of 'privacy' is indeed the level of privacy we were guaranteed by the constitution. While I have no desire to give up any rights I've been exercising, whether guaranteed or not, it seems unreasonable to fault him for playing by the rules.

[ecoli]

Unfortunately 'privacy' is a very general term. It seems to me that if Obama takes an action that erodes some aspect of rights we believe are contained in the term 'privacy', and his actions are ruled to be legal, then this newly defined (and more limited) definition of 'privacy' is indeed the level of privacy we were guaranteed by the constitution. While I have no desire to give up any rights I've been exercising, whether guaranteed or not, it seems unreasonable to fault him for playing by the rules.

 

While Bush & now Obama have gotten away with the legal wiggle room, there's little doubt in my mind that the wide-scale surveillance and privacy violations of American citizen's by our gov't in the name of security lies against the principles of the constitution and bill of rights as determined by various courts. I am not, however, a lawyer.

[padren]

Extending the Patriot act, using surveillance drones on citizens, signing the National Defense Authorization Act, spying on citizens using the NSA's data processing center and using private firms to avoid warrants, prosecuting gov't whistleblowers (wikileaks cases), blocking freedom of information requests.

 

More here: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/obamas_dismal_civil_liberties_record/

 

I have to agree with you on this 100%, and while I personally hope his more centrist ideas on healthcare and the economy get a chance to prove their benefit potentials, the civil rights side of his policies are unconscionable - especially the National Defense Authorization Act. His "serious reservations" about the bill are actually more offense imo, because he basically said he "knows it's wrong" but heck, will authorize a permanent executive power grab at the expense of both civil liberties and checks & balances because... well I don't recall him providing a reason.

 

It especially bothers me because despite the complaints from the left during the Bush years on the erosion of civil liberties, it really appears no one has a dog in that fight today.

 

It's bad enough imo that even Ron Paul would be a better President than either current candidate, despite the wide spread destruction he'd cause on account of his more delusional beliefs about economy.

[JohnB]

Thanks guys. So he's done "okay" then.

 

I don't really think he's very liberal. This doesn't strike me as accurate. Perhaps relative to the batshit crazy paste eating screaming banshee right extremists he might be described as liberal, maybe... but then again by that metric so would Ronald Reagan. TBH, by nearly any other metric he's actually quite a bit right of center.

 

My impression is that he's managed to do a fairly excellent job overall given the hand dealt him, a situation made incredibly worse by a do-nothing obstructionist opposition who are using parliamentary tactics in a non-parliamentary system to stall any and every proposal he makes, but I agree that a bit more leadership or "pizzazz" from him might have allowed more to get done despite the obstacles he faced.

 

iNow could you expand on this a bit as I don't get it. What are these "Parliamentary tactics"? Coming from a nation with a Parliament I do have problems understanding the US system. In a Parliament if you have more votes in the House than the other guy, you win. 300 Congressmen? So long as 151 of them are from your side, you control the House. The same is true for the Senate. Under a Parliamentary system there is no excuse for the Democrats to not have enacted every policy that they campaigned on. They had the votes in the lower House, the Senate and the POTUS. It doesn't matter what the GOP said, they didn't have the numbers.

 

And I don't understand the "delay" bit at all. In a Parliament the Goverment moves the motion for acceptance of the Bill, or it's second reading, or whatever and as they have the numbers when the vote is taken, they win. You can only slow a Bill down by debating amendments to the Bill itself. The amendments get voted on and if passed the Bill is off to the Senate. You're hard pressed to delay something when the government can call for the vote and has the numbers to pass what they want.

 

PS. John, I think "colour" is a lot more important to Americans than to many from Australia. There was a big kerfuffle over a KFC ad a couple of years ago and the Aussies didn't get the problem. We saw an Australia supporter sitting in the middle of a heap of Windies supporters at a cricket match, but Americans saw a white man sitting in the middle of a lot of black people. Plus they have some bizarre taboo concerning black people and fried chicken. (Thor only knows what that is about.)

Edited August 25, 2012 by JohnB

[swansont]

I think iNow was referring to "parliamentary procedure", i.e. the rules of order. Having a simple majority in our senate isn't enough to overcome a filibuster, and the republicans have used that (or the threat of it) a lot to prevent certain items from coming to a vote.

[iNow]

Filibuster use is definitely part of it. There is also the refusal to give an up or down vote on basic legislation... The speaker won't even bring half this stuff to the floor for a vote most times. Then there's also the refusal to vote on appointments to key positions... Letting critical roles go unstaffed... That sort of thing. It's a bunch of procedural ridiculousness instead of mature legislation. Gaming the system instead of governing the country...

 

Here's just one article on the subject. There are many others.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization/index.html

 

While both parties have played roles in the growth of polarization since the 1970s, since 2007 congressional Republicans have been taking the partisan wars to new extremes in several areas.

 

The first is with the kind of brinksmanship budgetary politics that has now become normative. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner once again threatened that Republicans would not vote to increase the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to certain tax and spending policies sought by the GOP. Republicans have used this tactic repeatedly in the past few years, each time bringing the nation closer to the brink of default.

 

This is no way to decide on a budget or to handle the nation's debt. Holding the debt ceiling hostage to win political battles has undermined international confidence in the U.S. political system. It has also created an unhealthy atmosphere where politicians are willing to take great risks with the goal of winning certain legislative battles. There need to be some limits to what legislators are willing to do in the pursuit of victory.

 

The second way Republicans push the envelope of partisanship is with the filibuster. As political junkies know, use of the filibuster has greatly increased since the 1970s. Both parties have been guilty. A tool once reserved for high-profile legislation such as civil rights became a normalized tool of combat making the Senate a supermajoritarian body on almost every decision.

 

Senators don't even have to filibuster anymore. They can simply raise the threat and that brings the discussion to an end. Senators have also employed additional tactics such as anonymous holds, whereby senators can secretly prevent action on a bill and nobody can know who was responsible.

 

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.

 

<...>

 

It could be that Republicans will take things so far that we may reach one of those rare moments when congressional reform happens. If reform does not happen, and these trends continue, the nation will be left with an inoperative legislative process that can't handle the problems we face with the economy, social problems and foreign policy.

Edited August 26, 2012 by iNow

[ralfy]

Same as the Presidents before him: deregulation with heavy borrowing and spending to prop up the economy.

[JohnB]

Aaah, thanks guys.

 

As a simple majority is all we need, those tactics don't work. The Speaker calls the vote and that is it. Vote yes, no, or abstain the vote is called and the numbers added, majority wins. The Opposition could walk out if they wanted and it wouldn't make any difference so long as a Quorum remains.

[iNow]

Often our speaker simply refuses to call a vote. They've done that about a hundred gagillion times this year alone.

[rigney]

Filibuster use is definitely part of it. There is also the refusal to give an up or down vote on basic legislation... The speaker won't even bring half this stuff to the floor for a vote most times. Then there's also the refusal to vote on appointments to key positions... Letting critical roles go unstaffed... That sort of thing. It's a bunch of procedural ridiculousness instead of mature legislation. Gaming the system instead of governing the country...

 

Here's just one article on the subject. There are many others.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization/index.html

I certainly hate to upset the liberal mind, but maybe we should turn this whole stinking mess over to Oklahomans since they seem to be the only ones capable of doing anything about our problems.

 

OKLAHOMA!!!!

 

'Be who you are and say what you feel, because those that matter - don't mind... and those that mind - don't matter.'

 

Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win even one county in the last election...

 

While everyone is focusing on Arizona's new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!!

 

An update from Oklahoma:

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9 an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

 

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

 

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

Guess what......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

 

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so.

More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals The Liberals didn't like it -- But......

Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

 

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver's license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. It's really simple.

By the way, the Liberals didn't like any of this.

But guess what...who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

Edited August 27, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

I certainly hate to upset the liberal mind, but maybe we should turn this whole stinking mess over to Oklahomans since they seem to be the only ones capable of doing anything about our problems.

 

OKLAHOMA!!!!

AKA Sooners, i.e. where being an illegal immigrant is the state motto (short version: Sooners illegally crossed borders to claim lands to homestead.)

 

'Be who you are and say what you feel, because those that matter - don't mind... and those that mind - don't matter.'

 

Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win even one county in the last election...

 

While everyone is focusing on Arizona's new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!!

 

An update from Oklahoma:

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9 an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

So you hate the first amendment and are proud of it. Wow.

 

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Good thing this didn't happen with the original Sooners, eh? See above.

 

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

Guess what......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Illegal search and seizure. So you hate the fourth amendment, too.

 

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so.

More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

That sort of explains hating the Constitution

 

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals The Liberals didn't like it -- But......

Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

What are these "bold steps"? What laws have been passed? Cite, or I'll assume you're just making stuff up again.

 

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver's license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. It's really simple.

By the way, the Liberals didn't like any of this.

But guess what...who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

It IS racist. Road signs also have shapes to tell you what they mean, so that the language isn't crucial. Sounds like the 14th amendment means nothing to Oklahoma, either.

 

Actively subverting the constitution is pretty un-American, if you ask me. Yet you seem proud of it.

[Phi for All]

Actively subverting the constitution is pretty un-American, if you ask me. Yet you seem proud of it.

You know who else was proud of trying to subvert the US constitution? The Communists of the Soviet Union.

[Arete]

It IS racist. Road signs also have shapes to tell you what they mean, so that the language isn't crucial. Sounds like the 14th amendment means nothing to Oklahoma, either.

In addition, you're allowed to drive anywhere in the US for the first 3 months on your home country's license - so it's not actually preventing non-English speakers from driving anyway.

 

I had more trouble adjusting to the fact that road rules are seemingly just mild suggestions in New England than I did to driving in non-English speaking countries like Costa Rica, China, Vietnam, Venezuela and Ecuador.

[zapatos]

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns.

What are these bold steps you allude to?