usta in Portland
Daily Driver
And do what with it?
:huh:
:huh:
From the 'Light a Candle"...
- Thread starter usta in Portland
- Start date
ColonelHaiku
True Classic
The Carney Shuffle
Chief White House press flack Jay Carney minces around for approximately 9 minutes before he finally admits what most who have followed this debt ceiling issue understand... President Obama won’t put his "plan" on paper because he doesn’t want it to become (in Carney's words) “politically charged” before a compromise can be agreed to.
Much like their "Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act", you’ve got to pass the thing to discover what’s in it:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbKemPlo-2E"]White House Spends 10 Min. Saying They Won't Release A Plan They Might Not Have‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Chief White House press flack Jay Carney minces around for approximately 9 minutes before he finally admits what most who have followed this debt ceiling issue understand... President Obama won’t put his "plan" on paper because he doesn’t want it to become (in Carney's words) “politically charged” before a compromise can be agreed to.
Much like their "Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act", you’ve got to pass the thing to discover what’s in it:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbKemPlo-2E"]White House Spends 10 Min. Saying They Won't Release A Plan They Might Not Have‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Matthew
True Classic
Regardless of policy or politics I've never seen a president in my lifetime (BHO is the 5th I'm old enough to remember) that is so bad at his job. I never though Obama would be a good president but that was because I fundamentally disagree with his political philosophy. I actually thought he might be good at being president and I never imagined he would be so bad at it. The GOP is going to have to really blow it to lose to this guy. I figure there is a better than average chance they will.
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
Yeah, they better....
be careful who they nominate. Obama, like Clinton, is lousy at being President (my gripes with him are of an entirely different stripe than yours but the conclusion is the same) but he has been a formidable campaigner and fund raiser. The GOP is not completely incapable of turning this whole thing on their heads. They make the mistake sometimes of believing their own propaganda a bit too much. The polls are not good for Obama but they are even worse for the GOP Congress. The raft of candidates are going to have to play this one carefully. Bachmann, having nothing to lose really, is going for broke and opposing her Speaker and hanging with her TP friends, hoping, one supposes that a significant number of independents will relish the idea of a minor crisis in the economy and a further slowdown in the recovery-both of which are just about certain if this situation goes over the current brink. How many outside the Kool-Aid circle are going to buy the theory that a massive withdrawl of government spending and the loss of jobs attendant to that is somehow going to perk up domestic demand (remember our export sector is only an 8% of GDP gig and won't be helped by the strengthed dollar) enough to make more jobs than it loses and that the increase in borrowing costs are going to be covered by the miraculous upswing in the economy, is a matter of speculation I suppose. But if the hedge fund guys are to be believed and the historic data given any weight the cuts are going to cause a decline almost for sure. Any position further right of Boehner is just so much the worse. Of course the fundamentally nihilistic underpinnings of the whole slash and crash policy of precipitous budget cuts is fully in sync with these likely outcomes, so the proponents are not going to be surprised. Six months down the road if Obama can pin the worsening conditions on the GOP generally he just might tar the whole field of Republican candidates.
be careful who they nominate. Obama, like Clinton, is lousy at being President (my gripes with him are of an entirely different stripe than yours but the conclusion is the same) but he has been a formidable campaigner and fund raiser. The GOP is not completely incapable of turning this whole thing on their heads. They make the mistake sometimes of believing their own propaganda a bit too much. The polls are not good for Obama but they are even worse for the GOP Congress. The raft of candidates are going to have to play this one carefully. Bachmann, having nothing to lose really, is going for broke and opposing her Speaker and hanging with her TP friends, hoping, one supposes that a significant number of independents will relish the idea of a minor crisis in the economy and a further slowdown in the recovery-both of which are just about certain if this situation goes over the current brink. How many outside the Kool-Aid circle are going to buy the theory that a massive withdrawl of government spending and the loss of jobs attendant to that is somehow going to perk up domestic demand (remember our export sector is only an 8% of GDP gig and won't be helped by the strengthed dollar) enough to make more jobs than it loses and that the increase in borrowing costs are going to be covered by the miraculous upswing in the economy, is a matter of speculation I suppose. But if the hedge fund guys are to be believed and the historic data given any weight the cuts are going to cause a decline almost for sure. Any position further right of Boehner is just so much the worse. Of course the fundamentally nihilistic underpinnings of the whole slash and crash policy of precipitous budget cuts is fully in sync with these likely outcomes, so the proponents are not going to be surprised. Six months down the road if Obama can pin the worsening conditions on the GOP generally he just might tar the whole field of Republican candidates.
Matthew
True Classic
I actually thought Clinton was pretty good at being president. Not saying he was a good president just that he had a talent for the job. Some of his weaknesses obviously caused some problems for him but he knew how to connect with people and he was good at using the bully pulpit. Obama is just spectacularly bad at all of it.
ColonelHaiku
True Classic
Much like Nixon
other than his criminal tendencies, Clinton wasn't so bad... especially compared to the current occupant. This guy seems so comfortable lying - and does so blatantly and repeatedly - that there has to be something almost pathological going on.
other than his criminal tendencies, Clinton wasn't so bad... especially compared to the current occupant. This guy seems so comfortable lying - and does so blatantly and repeatedly - that there has to be something almost pathological going on.
Matthew
True Classic
Nixon's criminal tendencies were the least of it. The Nixon administration had the some of the worst economic policies in US history. Nixon and Clinton were exceptionally good liars but were good at being president (scandals notwithstanding). Obama is bad at everything including lying. About the only thing he is good at is raising money.
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
It's kind of non discussion....
to just insist he is 'bad'-what does that mean besides 'I don't like him'.
If you don't like him then none of the good qualities you see in the others is going to be apparent. Clinton connects with people? Well, maybe if you are the type he connects with. Nixon? A barely veiled hoodlum with near perfect pitch on the geo-political front, but the damage he did to the country as a whole is still being felt. It was his 'Southern Strategy' that is the root of the extreme polarization in our politics. He did have the great strength of being utterly uninterested in social issues of any kind-he paid lip service to them but abortion, school prayer, yadda yadda-he couldn't have cared less.
Obama may be the weakest leader and the least objectionable personally of the three. His personal poll numbers hold up pretty well-people tend to think he is a hard working anf basically a good guy despite his governance.
to just insist he is 'bad'-what does that mean besides 'I don't like him'.
If you don't like him then none of the good qualities you see in the others is going to be apparent. Clinton connects with people? Well, maybe if you are the type he connects with. Nixon? A barely veiled hoodlum with near perfect pitch on the geo-political front, but the damage he did to the country as a whole is still being felt. It was his 'Southern Strategy' that is the root of the extreme polarization in our politics. He did have the great strength of being utterly uninterested in social issues of any kind-he paid lip service to them but abortion, school prayer, yadda yadda-he couldn't have cared less.
Obama may be the weakest leader and the least objectionable personally of the three. His personal poll numbers hold up pretty well-people tend to think he is a hard working anf basically a good guy despite his governance.
Matthew
True Classic
It has nothing to do with whether or not I like him. I didn't like Clinton and I wouldn't have liked Nixon but It is clear to me they had a certain talent for the job. It has seemed clear to me that Obama has been in way over is head since the beginning. That seems to be rapidly becoming the consensus opinion too. No doubt the hard core Kool-Aid drinkers will disagree no matter what but that always happens on both sides. Also, I'm not convinced Obama isn't a "nice guy" but that has nothing to do with what I think of his talent for the job he is in. I suppose "talent for the job" is subjective and open to interpretation which certainly complicates discussion.
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
Yes, it certainly does complicate...
Almost to the point of impossibility. Given that another person under similar circumstances might not do any better-neither Clinton nor Nixon ever operated in quite the same toxic environment as Obama, Clinton had a robust economy behind him and even Nixon was still presiding over a bi-partisan government not a completely divided one. It's hard to say just how well anyone of mere flesh and blood would do now. Certainly McCain would be disaster x 10, clueless, unlikable, old, you name it. H. Clinton would have been even worse. Maybe a Bloombergian moderate could have navigated everything except the wars with more aplomb, but who knows. The list of those who could actually do better, as opposed to just scratching certain sectarian itches more effectively is pretty short. That may be why Obama is there and not somone else. He was at least a fresh face 4 years ago. The notion that he is facing pretty unprecedented circumstances is no less true just because he is not doing better than he is. The circumstances are there. We might well be in the midst of true tipping point in our economy where none of the old answers are going to work simply because the question has been changed so radically. High structural unemployment may be the new paradigm. Ever increasing wealth disparities may just be the way capitaism is going to work here for a good long while as the country and everyone in it deleverages. Fighting these trends is, I suppose, the natural thing to do if you are in power, but that doesn't mean you will, or even can, win. It will all come out in the wash around the middle of 2013 or so. The numbers are piling up everywhere and something will give.
Almost to the point of impossibility. Given that another person under similar circumstances might not do any better-neither Clinton nor Nixon ever operated in quite the same toxic environment as Obama, Clinton had a robust economy behind him and even Nixon was still presiding over a bi-partisan government not a completely divided one. It's hard to say just how well anyone of mere flesh and blood would do now. Certainly McCain would be disaster x 10, clueless, unlikable, old, you name it. H. Clinton would have been even worse. Maybe a Bloombergian moderate could have navigated everything except the wars with more aplomb, but who knows. The list of those who could actually do better, as opposed to just scratching certain sectarian itches more effectively is pretty short. That may be why Obama is there and not somone else. He was at least a fresh face 4 years ago. The notion that he is facing pretty unprecedented circumstances is no less true just because he is not doing better than he is. The circumstances are there. We might well be in the midst of true tipping point in our economy where none of the old answers are going to work simply because the question has been changed so radically. High structural unemployment may be the new paradigm. Ever increasing wealth disparities may just be the way capitaism is going to work here for a good long while as the country and everyone in it deleverages. Fighting these trends is, I suppose, the natural thing to do if you are in power, but that doesn't mean you will, or even can, win. It will all come out in the wash around the middle of 2013 or so. The numbers are piling up everywhere and something will give.