What is Obama's signature achievement as president? (1 Viewer)

[ren hoek]

This doesn't jibe with the line of thought he was  a racebaiting weanie that I read in here all that time.

Well, there was the race pandering too.  

 

[ren hoek]

Lol is this a trick post to make conservatives reconsider Obama?

Hah.  What part of that are conservatives supposed to be enamored by?  

 

[rockaction]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/world/americas/24iht-obama.4.18116853.html

Just for you.

Cool. Read it. Thanks for the re-post. I do remember the complaints from progressives about Gates, Clinton, and others. 

Daschle was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. 

I think it's interesting, though, how things fell apart. I'd have to check his appointments and see how liberal they all were. We know he governed -- aside from health care and social issues -- as a centrist on the economy and on foreign policy, and it's interesting the vitriol he gets from the right.   

Because he did win. 

 

[rockaction]

Hah.  What part of that are conservatives supposed to be enamored by?  

I think he's saying your criticism of him is so over-the-top you're making people reconsider their own side, I think. I comment neither one way nor the other on that.  

 

[JIslander]

I remember both jon_mx's points and the NYT's points about obstructionism. 

He really did say things like "elections have consequences," "I won," etc. Normally, presidents speak with more diplomacy and at least present the illusion of bipartisanship so he can pick off five-ten vulnerable senators and a bunch in the House. He totally locked them out of health care and then pointed at Romney for installing the same plan at a state level. 

Then, the Republicans obstructed. 

Who's right? Depends on your political belief. 

What happened to your post, FUJB? Just had it with the whole thing? Don't blame you.  

Somehow I'm thinking if a Pres. Romney had said "I won" and "elections have consequences", it would have been celebrated vs. disdained.

 

[badmojo1006]

I think Bob Dylan highlighted it better.

In all seriousness, that award -- and I stress I think President Obama was a good President, executive orders and ISIS aside -- was a joke, and was simply the awarding committee's rebuke of Operation: Enduring Freedom and President Bush, who I also think inherited a terrible situation. 

Hegemonies often inherent terrible situations. It's what they do.  

I will agree on the Nobel Peace Prize. It was way too early in his Presidentacy (or was it even before he got into offic? I don't remember)

 

[Rove!]

Prevented Hillary or McCain from becoming President....

 

[jon_mx]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/world/americas/24iht-obama.4.18116853.html

Just for you.

Yes, Obama pretended to be nice during the transition, but as soon as he was inaugurated...



Obama to GOP: 'I won'

By CAROL E. LEE and JONATHAN MARTIN 

01/23/09 01:25 PM EST

 

Updated 01/24/09 12:37 AM EST



Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.

At another point in the meeting, sources said Obama told the group: “This is a grave situation facing the country.” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would hold another economic meeting in the White House Saturday for a "broader group."

After Friday's meeting, Democratic and Republican leaders publicly wrangled over the developing stimulus plan.

But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill was on track for passage by February 16, while Republicans continued to voice their opposition.

 

[Higgs]

This doesn't jibe with the line of thought he was  a racebaiting weanie that I read in here all that time.

It's a good read, and definitely good for thought.  Glad he posted it.

 

[jon_mx]

Somehow I'm thinking if a Pres. Romney had said "I won" and "elections have consequences", it would have been celebrated vs. disdained.

And the GOP would have been the #######s for it.  Go ahead and make excuses for his crappy behavior, but it did in fact contribute to the animosity between Obama and house republicans.  

 

[ren hoek]

I think he's saying your criticism of him is so over-the-top you're making people reconsider their own side, I think. I comment neither one way nor the other on that.  

He quoted the preface to the Kenyan woman's links about how absent he was as any sort of civil rights leader.  I read it as him implying conservatives would prefer an Uncle Tom president.  

The only reason it could be considered over the top is because people generally prefer to think in polite, noble terms when they think of presidents.  Obama was a very sophisticated, well spoken politician.  In words he was a statesman to make the whole world sing.  It's hard for them to decouple that from the Orwellian president he actually was.  That's just the empirical reality who he was in action.  

 

[rockaction]

He quoted the preface to the Kenyan woman's links about how absent he was as any sort of civil rights leader.  I read it as him implying conservatives would prefer an Uncle Tom president.  

The only reason it could be considered over the top is because people generally prefer to think in polite, noble terms when they think of presidents.  Obama was a very sophisticated, well spoken politician.  In words he was a statesman to make the whole world sing.  It's hard for them to decouple that from the Orwellian president he actually was.  That's just the empirical reality who he was in action.  

My friend, who is kind of in the know about politics on a high level, told me his concern wasn't Obama's liberalism, it was his cynicism and Orwellian impulses, so I can see that.  

 

[timschochet]

I wasn't accusing you of not quoting them.    Acting like you came up with something new 50-60 years later because you read some books is peculiar to me. That's all. 

It appears you completely misread the exchange of posts then. I never once pretended that what I wrote was a new idea. It was Heavy, Higgs, and jon mx who accused me of revisionism. My point was that it wasn't. 

 

[The General]

And the GOP would have been the #######s for it.  Go ahead and make excuses for his crappy behavior, but it did in fact contribute to the animosity between Obama and house republicans.  

I didn't really get how this line became this big oh #### moment. My understanding is Obama was meeting with Cantor and other republicans. They brought their ideas on spending, cuts, etc for the stimulus bill. 

They differed from how Obama wanted to do it. He said I won, what I want to do here trumps what you want to do because of that. 

That doesn't seem like something that you get hysterical about for years and refuse to ever work with the guy again. 

 

[JIslander]

And the GOP would have been the #######s for it.  Go ahead and make excuses for his crappy behavior, but it did in fact contribute to the animosity between Obama and house republicans.  

Nah. Obama was black, remember?  He had a higher bar.... (funny to think of that now).

 

[rockaction]

I didn't really get how this line became this big oh #### moment. My understanding is Obama was meeting with Cantor and other republicans. They brought their ideas on spending, cuts, etc for the stimulus bill. 

They differed from how Obama wanted to do it. He said I won, what I want to do here trumps what you want to do because of that. 

That doesn't seem like something that you get hysterical about for years and refuse to ever work with the guy again. 

I think it was a pattern. Also, diplomacy is an art. President Obama, by all accounts, had little. Both with the press and within his own party.  

 

[rockaction]

Nah. Obama was black, remember?  He had a higher bar.... (funny to think of that now).

I don't even get what that means. It must be me. Can you unpack that?  

 

[JIslander]

I don't even get what that means. It must be me. Can you unpack that?  

Certainly first black Pres. will kowtow to Congress.

 

[The General]

I think it was a pattern. Also, diplomacy is an art. President Obama, by all accounts had little. Both with the press and within his own party.  

He was not as skilled at this as I would have hoped. One of his biggest weaknesses. 

 

[rockaction]

Certainly first black will kowtow to Congress.

Ah, okay. Yeah, going in with a list of demands to the victor could indeed be seen as having a racial component.  

eta* It's not like he went in weakly, either. He won the popular vote and large, large margins of the Electoral College. 

 

[jon_mx]

I didn't really get how this line became this big oh #### moment. My understanding is Obama was meeting with Cantor and other republicans. They brought their ideas on spending, cuts, etc for the stimulus bill. 

They differed from how Obama wanted to do it. He said I won, what I want to do here trumps what you want to do because of that. 

That doesn't seem like something that you get hysterical about for years and refuse to ever work with the guy again. 

It was an $800 billion stimulus package.  You could at least throw a bone or two to the other side to get some bi-partisan support.   It was effectively spitting in their face not to give in one bit to any of the ideas they presented.   It was the first impression Obama made and it set the tone.   That is just a fact.  

 

[The General]

It was an $800 billion stimulus package.  You could at least throw a bone or two to the other side to get some bi-partisan support.   It was effectively spitting in their face not to give in one bit to any of the ideas they presented.   It was the first impression Obama made and it set the tone.   That is just a fact.  

You are saying there were no concessions to the republicans in this? Yeah going to have to disagree there.

 

[jon_mx]

You are saying there were no concessions to the republicans in this? Yeah going to have to disagree there.

It was 100 percent Democratic driven.  Obama tossed every conservative idea out.  The tax cuts were geared towards the poor.  Green energy was the major business targeted.  Infrastructure spending on half-baked projects was king.  The housing tax credit was so convoluted people scarcely used it. There were a ton of things which could have been better. 

The whole purpose of the meeting with Obama and the GOP was to present ideas to improve the stimulus and to respond by wadding up their input and saying "I won" was a major league ####### stunt. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

It was 100 percent Democratic driven.  Obama tossed every conservative idea out.  The tax cuts were geared towards the poor.  Green energy was the major business targeted.  Infrastructure spending on half-baked projects was king.  The housing tax credit was so convoluted people scarcely used it. There were a ton of things which could have been better. 

The whole purpose of the meeting with Obama and the GOP was to present ideas to improve the stimulus and to respond by wadding up their input and saying "I won" was a major league ####### stunt. 

Yep.  Obama and the Democrats made their own bed.

Wasn't there one time where Obama and Boehner had an agreement on something - was it the budget?  I can't remember - and then Obama tried to change the terms at the last minute, thereby kai-boshing any chance Republicans would trust him again.

 

[The General]

It was 100 percent Democratic driven.  Obama tossed every conservative idea out.  The tax cuts were geared towards the poor.  Green energy was the major business targeted.  Infrastructure spending on half-baked projects was king.  The housing tax credit was so convoluted people scarcely used it. There were a ton of things which could have been better. 

The whole purpose of the meeting with Obama and the GOP was to present ideas to improve the stimulus and to respond by wadding up their input and saying "I won" was a major league ####### stunt. 

Democrats wanted it to be bigger, it got trimmed down. Many Dems at the time were upset with Obama caving in on those cuts IIRC.

I look forward to Republicans working with Dems to accomplish things.

 

[The General]

Yep.  Obama and the Democrats made their own bed.

Wasn't there one time where Obama and Boehner had an agreement on something - was it the budget?  I can't remember - and then Obama tried to change the terms at the last minute, thereby kai-boshing any chance Republicans would trust him again.

The bed they made was pretty ####### nice compared with the crap that he stepped into, no?

 

[The General]

McConnell saying his number one priority after Obama getting elected in 08 was to ensure he was a one term president is the type of bipartisan, classy deal making that Obama just lacked.

 

[squistion]

McConnell saying his number one priority after Obama getting elected in 08 was to ensure he was a one term president is the type of bipartisan, classy deal making that Obama just lacked.

This revisionist history that it was 100% the fault of Obama and the Democrats and 0% of McConnell and the Republicans is rather pathetic spin even for this crowd.

 

[Mario Kart]

Exactly. The GOP wanted to work with him for 8 years but he wouldn't budge. 

That is quite the revisionist history, isn't it? Day 1 McConnell said they wouldn't work with him. Blame Obama on that... so say the Conservatives.

 

[Mario Kart]

It was an $800 billion stimulus package.  You could at least throw a bone or two to the other side to get some bi-partisan support.   It was effectively spitting in their face not to give in one bit to any of the ideas they presented.   It was the first impression Obama made and it set the tone.   That is just a fact.  

This is what is called "alternative facts."

 

[NREC34]

That is quite the revisionist history, isn't it? Day 1 McConnell said they wouldn't work with him. Blame Obama on that... so say the Conservatives.

What gets my goat is that Obama was a guy who would've worked with them. Articulate and dignified. 

Now they want to act like the orange cheetoh buffoon they adore deserves anything different than what they did.

For. 8. Years.

 

[lakerstan]

Something that impacted me personally was the Home Asset Relief Program (HARP). Many houses went under water in my state with the recession under Bush, and I got to re-fi a 6% 30 year mortgage to a 3% 15 year mortgage for about the same payment.  Probably saved me $100k over the life of my loan, and now home prices have rebounded.

 

[MaxThreshold]

What gets my goat is that Obama was a guy who would've worked with them. Articulate and dignified. 

Now this is revisionist history.  Obama made perfectly clear that he won and the GOP needed to get to the back of the bus.  The only way Obama would have "worked" with the GOP is if they would have acquiesced to everything he wanted.

Obama simply could not be trusted.

 

[Mr Fantasy]

What gets my goat is that Obama was a guy who would've worked with them. Articulate and dignified. 

Now they want to act like the orange cheetoh buffoon they adore deserves anything different than what they did.

For. 8. Years.

"Elections have consequences"

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

This revisionist history that it was 100% the fault of Obama and the Democrats and 0% of McConnell and the Republicans is rather pathetic spin even for this crowd.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This revisionist history that it was 100% the fault of Obama and the Democrats and 0% of McConnell and the Republicans is rather pathetic spin even for this crowd.

Frankly, I agree with this.  I think their is enough blame on both sides.  Neither side could put their differences aside and work together and it just got worse and worse.

 

[The General]

Now this is revisionist history.  Obama made perfectly clear that he won and the GOP needed to get to the back of the bus.  The only way Obama would have "worked" with the GOP is if they would have acquiesced to everything he wanted.

Obama simply could not be trusted.

Neither side is really interested in working with the other side. GOP did take an especially creepy tone with Obama with the whole Birther bull####. Spare me the back of the bus stuff. That's how it works.

Obama did decrease the size of the stimulus. The Republicans wanted that because of course they were suddenly very concerned about spending now that Democrats had control.

The stimulus worked BTW.

The original thing that started what we are talking about is I never understood why the "elections have consequences" line was considered so shocking. It's just the facts. The people in power get to have it their way.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Neither side is really interested in working with the other side. GOP did take an especially creepy tone with Obama with the whole Birther bull####. Spare me the back of the bus stuff. That's how it works.

Obama did decrease the size of the stimulus. The Republicans wanted that because of course they were suddenly very concerned about spending now that Democrats had control.

The stimulus worked BTW.

The original thing that started what we are talking about is I never understood why the "elections have consequences" line was considered so shocking. It's just the facts. The people in power get to have it their way.

You're probably right about neither side wanting to work with each other anyways.  That I can agree on.

The "back of the bus" stuff you refer to is NOT how it works.  Just because you win the election doesn't mean you automatically get everything you want, whenever you want (as we're seeing right now with DJT).  You don't have to work with the other side, but you probably could get more done if you did.  They aren't simply going to lay down and let you roll over them and when you act like an ### about it, it's only going to make it more difficult.

 

[squistion]

Neither side is really interested in working with the other side. GOP did take an especially creepy tone with Obama with the whole Birther bull####. Spare me the back of the bus stuff. That's how it works.

Obama did decrease the size of the stimulus. The Republicans wanted that because of course they were suddenly very concerned about spending now that Democrats had control.

The stimulus worked BTW.

The original thing that started what we are talking about is I never understood why the "elections have consequences" line was considered so shocking. It's just the facts. The people in power get to have it their way.

See George W. Bush, who essentially said the same thing - but not one of Obama's critics for his "elections have consequences" line have ever had any problem with that:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/04/uselections2004.usa20

Bush to 'spend political capital'

Re-elected US president George Bush today said he intended to spend the "political capital" he earned campaigning for the White House.

In his first press conference since the election he acknowledged he had to "explain the decisions I make" but said he had every intention of following through with a second term agenda stretching from an overhaul of the tax system to "spreading freedom" in the Middle East.

"The people made it clear what they wanted," he said. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it."

 

[MaxThreshold]

See George W. Bush, who essentially said the same thing - but not one of Obama's critics for his "elections have consequences" line have ever had any problem with that:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/04/uselections2004.usa20

Bush to 'spend political capital'

Re-elected US president George Bush today said he intended to spend the "political capital" he earned campaigning for the White House.

In his first press conference since the election he acknowledged he had to "explain the decisions I make" but said he had every intention of following through with a second term agenda stretching from an overhaul of the tax system to "spreading freedom" in the Middle East.

"The people made it clear what they wanted," he said. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it."

Try as you might, that's not even close to the same thing.

 

[The General]

You're probably right about neither side wanting to work with each other anyways.  That I can agree on.

The "back of the bus" stuff you refer to is NOT how it works.  Just because you win the election doesn't mean you automatically get everything you want, whenever you want (as we're seeing right now with DJT).  You don't have to work with the other side, but you probably could get more done if you did.  They aren't simply going to lay down and let you roll over them and when you act like an ### about it, it's only going to make it more difficult.

Are you not reading that the democrats shrunk the size of the stimulus. That is concession. Agreed and have said that Obama could have been more skilled at leveraging his advantage with the other side.

This talk that Obama was 100% problem and the poor little group of McConnell, Cantor, Boehner, etc were just treated so poorly by mean old Obama is laughable. The republicans had just spent 8 years running roughshod over the dems.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Are you not reading that the democrats shrunk the size of the stimulus. That is concession. Agreed and have said that Obama could have been more skilled at leveraging his advantage with the other side.

This talk that Obama was 100% problem and the poor little group of McConnell, Cantor, Boehner, etc were just treated so poorly by mean old Obama is laughable. The republicans had just spent 8 years running roughshod over the dems.

I don't agree that Obama was 100% the problem either (as I stated in an earlier post).  Both sides did enough to make "working together" nearly impossible.

 

[The General]

I don't agree that Obama was 100% the problem either (as I stated in an earlier post).  Both sides did enough to make "working together" nearly impossible.

Yeah that was more directed at someone else, sorry.

I had hopes that Hillary would have been better at the maneuvering than W, Obama, and definitely Trump. Wasn't excited to vote for her but I think she would have had some success there despite all the baggage mainly because she is used to decades of that crap.

 

[squistion]

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/04/uselections2004.usa20

Bush to 'spend political capital'

Re-elected US president George Bush today said he intended to spend the "political capital" he earned campaigning for the White House.

In his first press conference since the election he acknowledged he had to "explain the decisions I make" but said he had every intention of following through with a second term agenda stretching from an overhaul of the tax system to "spreading freedom" in the Middle East.

"The people made it clear what they wanted," he said. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it."

Try as you might, that's not even close to the same thing.

It is too. How is it different? They were both saying they were given a mandate by the voters and get to set the agenda.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

This revisionist history that it was 100% the fault of Obama and the Democrats and 0% of McConnell and the Republicans is rather pathetic spin even for this crowd.

There's a 2000 page thread going strong right now blaming Trump and the Rs for everything. And nothing has even really happened

 

[squistion]

There's a 2000 page thread going strong right now blaming Trump and the Rs for everything. And nothing has even really happened

Did you miss the news that Republicans are in control of all three branches of government?

 

[jon_mx]

This is what is called "alternative facts."

Oh please oh so informed one, bless me with your knowledge of the real fact.  

 

[jon_mx]

Frankly, I agree with this.  I think their is enough blame on both sides.  Neither side could put their differences aside and work together and it just got worse and worse.

The people who have taken it is all one sides fault is the Dems 

 

[squistion]

The people who have taken it is all one sides fault is the Dems 

It was 100 percent Democratic driven.  Obama tossed every conservative idea out.  The tax cuts were geared towards the poor.  Green energy was the major business targeted.  Infrastructure spending on half-baked projects was king.  The housing tax credit was so convoluted people scarcely used it. There were a ton of things which could have been better. 

The whole purpose of the meeting with Obama and the GOP was to present ideas to improve the stimulus and to respond by wadding up their input and saying "I won" was a major league ####### stunt. 

 

[timschochet]

Wow, jon mx OWNED by squistion.  Too funny.