Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Obama: Sucess or Failure
zidangus
Veteran
Ok so first of all I will point out I am British, so it would be nice to hear what Americans actually think about Obama's time in office, has he made a big difference to your country, has he came through with the promises he made to get elected? , is your country that much better off now than in the Bush era ? do you think/hope that Obama wins a second term ? and what are the current alternatives to Obama, could a tea party candidate become president (scary thought IMO) ?
P.S if non Americans want to contribute their opinion, feel free also
P.S if non Americans want to contribute their opinion, feel free also
0
Comments
Policies like locking away drug users with violent criminals (yes, this might include drug users also) seems quite wrong. When a person goes to jail for non-violent drug charge, you basically take somebody who is trying to put something into their bodies and force them to learn to live in a violent society, which more often than not results in instilling violent tendencies in that person. Lisbon, Portugal has completely decriminalized all drug use and the police generally turn a blind eye to such personal and public usage. They actually saw a decline in drug use and violence related to drug use. They focused on drug use as a disease and opted to spend money on treatment instead of imprisonment.
When will we (Americans) see a president that proposes such an innovative idea, have it be a positive voting platform, and then actually follow through after being elected? The point is that neither major candidate will ever do something like that. This is why I generally vote for the libertarian candidate; although people call it a waste of a vote, I call it my vote. If more people thought for themselves and found a candidate that closely matched their views rather than just hopping on board with one of the major parties because of a few issues, or even worse by name only, then we might have an actual choice with our vote. For now, I will vote my vote of no confidence.
As for what Obama has/n't done... eh. He said he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay military prison, that didn't happen. His stimulus package didn't do much for the people, more the companies. The wars are still going on. I doubt the president has as much influence as most people think. It takes a great leader to get things done in this country because he/she has to work with a lot of other people and within our constitution to achieve his/her goals. Obama isn't as strong of a leader as the media and hype made him out to be. Its a very stressful job which requires wisdom and charisma. Obama only seems to have the latter.
I think Obama has done a good job, given who he has had to work with (a bunch of egotistical spoiled brats at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue), but he can only do so much. I think he truly believed he could do more than it turns out he's really able to do, given the system in which he is trapped.
No matter who the GOP puts forward, I will vote for Obama, since I so vehemently disagree with everything the GOP stands for in this day and age. I would vote for a pygmy goat before I'd vote for any of the potential GOP candidates.
I think the so-called "tea party" (the use of that name really galls me, since the original tea partiers were truly patriots, not ideological zealots like these folks) is a flash in the pan, and will soon disappear. At least I pray so. They would like to eviscerate the government without giving a thought to the implications. They've already thrown us into the financial mess we find ourselves in today because of their intransigence on something as simple as the debt ceiling.
Obama's stimulus package didn't work because of opposition in Congress to spending. There's also the matter that Bush Jr. left the country with a trashed economy, so spending a lot on a stimulus was a tricky issue. If Bush hadn't wrecked the economy with tax cuts for the rich and for corporations, and by starting wars, the US would have had the resources to spend on an effective stimulus package.
RE: who to vote for: what other sane option is there, when the Republicans are on the other half of the ballot?
P.S. John Kerry won the last election against Bush, according to investigations by Congress. If he'd taken the Presidency, things would be a lot different now.
Really ???? I thought that was Gore who really beat bush in 2000 not Kerry in 2004 ??
In the UK if this happened (government could not pass the laws it wants/not pass legislation) there would be another election called until there was a government with a majority (coalition or single party) in the house of commons, and government could operate effectively.
So another question to ask is, does the political system in America need overhauling to a system that is more effective ? I mean what is the point of a president if they can be stuck in a situation (as with the recent economic situation) where they are in effect lame ducks who do not have the power to pass their own legislation ?
There are three branches of federal government (executive, ie the president; legislative, senate and congress; and judicial, courts) which are all given the responsibility of preventing any one branch from exerting too much power. Sometimes one branch fails at that job (more often than not it is congress not exerting its power over the president), which is why the third branch is there. I suggest that the constitution be amended to specifically point out that the citizens of the USA are the fourth branch of government. It is the apathy and ignorance of the people that has allowed corporations to buy and control this country. The federal government SHOULD be the least important and the least known. Local governments are far more important, but disregarded now-a-days.
The federal government was not designed to rule the country, but to resolve disputes between states, protect the countries borders, and a few other functions. The idea was, with a large land mass and various "ideologies" on how to live life, that local governments could best fulfill the needs of the people of that area. The American public has allowed the federal government to be highjacked and are suffering the consequences of it now.
I would rather have a gridlocked government than one on EITHER side that can get all they want done. There are more ideologies than democrat and republican, and I will be damned if I am going to be forced into either one of those camps. Imagine if you were given a choice of two religions, how silly would it be for you to accept this knowing that there are so many more. Plus with only two political parties they can really use the "us vs them" mentality. If there were 4-6 political groups, they would have to work together on various topics, and not just a blanket attitude toward governing.
I didn't want Obama in office, I still don't want him there now. I feel like his inexperience (just like president Bush Jr) allows him to be manipulated by people who wouldn't ever make it into office otherwise. Historically, the president has the least of the powers of the three branches of government, but thanks to a lack of citizen involvement and a congress that ignores the will of the people, the president has gained more power than that position was ever intended to have.
Like I said before, the biggest issue isn't democrat vs republican, as this is just another distraction. The issue is state vs federal government. The states should be standing up for themselves and saying no to the federal government. No to a central bank. No to being blackmailed to have a 21 year old drinking age just so they can get funding for roads. No to a federal drug policy. No to federal income tax. No to ever being told how to govern their citizens when it is their constitutional right to do so (the tenth amendment to the constitution).
I think there are two small changes I would make to the constitution. First, I would specifically state that the fourth branch of government was the people. Name their responsibilities, primarily to keep congress in check (hold them accountable for their actions). Second, I would give the people the ability to dissolve congress. We can perform single recalls of elected officials, but we can't say we have no confidence in all of them as a whole. Once the process starts, nobody can resign or quit. Then prevent anybody from a dissolved congress from ever running for political office ever again. This would help remind the politicians that there are consequences for their actions and they would hopefully think twice about things. Simple changes that could be very powerful for the ones who should have the power, the people.
Another example of the "checks and balances" concept in Federal Gov't is: the Supreme Court can make laws as a result of federal cases that are taken up by the Court. Sometimes the Supremes (haha--pun. There used to be a popular African-American singing group called the "Supremes", in case you Brits didn't know) make a bad decision. So Congress can override the Court's decision by passing legislation. This "checks and balances" principle is considered a cornerstone of US governance, and has been regarded in the past as a Good Thing.
HOWEVER, the problem in the last 2 decades or so is that the two opposing parties no longer work together on important legislation, as they used to do in the past. There used to be a certain amount of bi-partisanship. Now the Republicans have polarized the relations between the two parties, and are using their power to dig in their heels and sabotage Democratic attempts to get back to a more just society. The polarization is more extreme now than it ever has been, at least in roughly the last century or so. So there's gridlock, and gridlock that can't be overcome by a persuasive or forceful president (which we don't have for the time being) talking members of the opposition into cooperating.
Also, I have to respectfully disagree with your blame of the republicans for polarizing the relations between the two parties and doing some really damaging things to the country. Both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of what they have done to this country, in addition to the citizens of the USA.
It isn't about a political party; it is about a widespread abundance of greed and a lack of compassion for other humans. Giving corporations the rights of an individual was a HUGE mistake on the part of the court system. It opened the doors for corporations to slowly take over many of our elected officials through lobbying. Corporations have millions of dollars to spend on lobbying... how much do you have to spend on the same thing? The owners and employees of corporations have the ability to lobby already, why do corporations also need that ability?
Once again, this contention between republican and democrat is just a major distraction (intentional or not) from more serious issues that are happening with this country. The best thing that the USA can do, would be to drop political parties and start voting for people and their platforms.
Originally I think the system worked, but now, bad ideals and issues, thinking etc seem to outlast our good leaders and left for those who make bad decisions to deal with. And, I pretty sure those of us who are surviving the Bush jr era can agree it's not working anymore.
lack of voting and public participation/interest in politics is only one part of the problem. Lack of politician public interests(that doesn't line their pockets..) is another.
My basic opinion is this, most leaders use a band-aid type idea as a solution cause of their limitations, but we have gotten to the point where we cannot just fix it for now and expect someone else to pick up the ball. Obama is really trying to do the most he can, but politics tend to get involved and taint the best ideas.
remember our government is based on the Greeks.....look whats happening with them. We should learn from history, even if it's not ours.
The GOP, and especially the teabaggers can't seem to come up with any policy idea that is bigger than what will fit on a bumper sticker (CUT, CAP, BALANCE!). They don't live in the real world where you have to compromise (which is now a dirty word to them), and where solutions to enormously complicated problems require thoughtful, well reasoned, and nuanced approaches. Most people in the GOP don't know the meaning of those big 50 cent words these days. Their idea is a no-holds barred rape and pillage approach to governing. If you don't like my way, then hit the highway. As a result, we see what we've seen in the past few weeks.
I have just read this wiki article on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
its quite frightening that these things can happen in the biggest democracy in the world, moreover, people get away with it ! Does the American press or public not hold people to account ? In the UK the press would have a field day if these things happened, there would be public outrage about this.
like others said, i won't vote for the GOP because they scare the crap out of me. why would i vote for someone who wants to strip my rights? no brainer. but honestly, i'm a little disappointed in obama. i know he walked into a mess, but somehow, i was just hoping for more. with so many people close to me unemployed, i sometimes wonder if things are actually worse now.
between you and me, i seriously wanted hillary clinton to win. i was VERY disappointed that he got the nomination.
Anyway to avoid being unfair to Obama, does anyone want to highlight what they think the best thing he has done since being in office (apart from not being called George Bush)
what do you think his legacy will be if he leaves office after only one term ?
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/
I think the reason why you don't hear what he has done, is because those things aren't what most Americans are worried or care about about. A lot of those things cater to certain groups of people and don't benefit the country as a whole. Also, I doubt that all those things were his, just because he signed it doesn't mean he gets credit for it.
Obama is just another ho-hum president. He wasn't Bush Jr., so people voted for him. I guess he will be remembered as the first non-white president.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, I would say that your name calling and baseless accusations tell me you aren't open to discussion on that topic, so I will leave it be.
I believe that governments quickly become crutches to people and that only through giving ourselves more freedom will we ultimately become better people.
Maybe I am too ideal, but we must live the change we want.
The President is the captain of the ship, so to speak. He can't do anything by himself of course, but the country operates under his guidance. Kinda like how we give Columbus, rather than his crew, the credit for discovering the new world.
To be frank I find the idea that people just voted for Obama because he wasn't Bush laughable. Were that the case I doubt he would have won by such a large margin of victory. The majority of the country agreed with his policies (which, I'll add, he went into far more detail about than ether McCain or Clinton).
2. No, I am not open to discussing fringe political candidates.
3. Oh, I see, your opinion is an "ideal". A different opinion is not an "ideal".
He just isn't a president which makes me think, wow, what a leader. He is a lot of rhetoric, like every other politician. I see nobody with strong innovative thinking, just more of the status quo. Except for those fringe nuts, but their chance to even be given an opportunity is slim to none.
I also think that we should be treating these "irresponsible" individuals, rather than either sending them to jail or hospital. There is an underlying problem which should be addressed. Lets fund that! If we approach each individual as though they are suffering human, we stand a better chance to help them. If you aren't willing to discuss "fringe politcal candidates", then maybe you shouldn't reply to comments about said candidates. You could have easily said that same thing without the commentary and stayed "not open."
ideal |īˈdē(ə)l|
adjective
1 satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable : the swimming pool is ideal for a quick dip | this is an ideal opportunity to save money
I would say that I used that word appropriately. Are you familiar with God vs god, or Mind vs mind? The same would apply to Ideal vs ideal (absolute vs relative). I am not claiming my thoughts on government are part of the ultimate truth, but I am expressing an ideal from my knowledge base. I am not saying people don't need help. I am saying we need to be honest and clear about the responsibilities of the government, the community, and the individual.
2. I'd be happy to discuss fringe candidates. But when you point out things about those fringe candidates, the supporters of those fringe candidates simply reply that you don't have an open mind. Been there, done that, lots.
3. We also need to be honest about the common misconception that Republicans have and often state -- "The American people want..." And that Democrats have and often state -- "The American people want..." When in reality, there is no general agreement on various policies on the part of people at different parts of the political spectrum. We also need politicians who begin to realize that even though they run as a Republican or a Democrat, once they are elected they represent all their constituents, not just the minority of constituents who voted for them.
The feds have always been trying to gain more and more ground in this country. It was that way from the very beginning, see the federalist/antifederalist papers. I supposed it is just a different philosophy
2. No need to lump me in with everybody else until you have a discussion with me. Then you can
3. This is why states rights are so important, there is no one solution. Governing in smaller units gives the most chance for success (for the same reason they put the lines in concrete, to reduce stress) Applying a blanket approach to different cultures and situations is highly tricky and while it might work, it is pretty inefficient.
I completely agree that politicians should represent their constituents. We just need a way to hold politicians accountable to the public and responsible for their actions.
Why should states have more rights than people?
@StaticToybox you're right saying he doesn't wow me, isn't a very good argument, but I am not here to sway you to believe the same things I do. I am just hoping to share another perspective on the situation. I have always felt that the more perspectives we understand the closer we come to understanding truth.
I know I won't find a politician that runs on more of the same, but that is what they deliver. So what is more important, what they campaign on or what they actually do? I am not arguing his platform was better or worse that anybody else's, I am looking at his actions against the backdrop of american history. Time can certainly prove me wrong and I am ok with that since I don't know everything ;-). To take it back to the OP, I would say he isn't a success or a failure overall: he has successes and he has failures.
My point in all this discussion is that I have yet to see a strong leader that is willing to risk his second term reelection for the good of the country. It is all about power and keeping the status quo. Nobody has tackled the fundamental issues, they are just putting bandages on the visible wounds. I don't want to get into a debate about obama vs anyone. I just want to see somebody with some long term vision who can see that fixing the fundamentals will help all aspects of our society. I realize this is rather difficult when you have to coordinate with so many others (especially those that will cut off their nose to spite their face), but that is what a strong leader does. If that person is a democrat, a republican, or a fringe candidate I matters not to me.
EDIT: If Obama gets reelected and is able to become a strong leader, I am happy for that too.
That being said I think congress is a big issue, they don't listen to their constituents and the people need a way to dismiss congress, to start with new blood so to speak. I think the current system allows things to move very slowly and that is important; however, if congress is not going in the direction we want them to (aka listening to their constituents), we do need the ability to wipe the slate clean (as clean as we can). We have the ability to recall individuals, but I think we need the ability to dismiss all of congress and ban those individuals from running for public office. This will help remind the legislative branch that we are their boss, not corporations or their own selfish desires. I don't think that would have to be used more than a few times before politicians would think twice about some of the bullshit they pull. What do you think?
Oh, they do listen to their constituents. The problem is their constituents can't decide what they hell they want. We sit idly by for 8 years as one man wrecks the economy, then we task someone else with fixing the problem, then get pissed when it's going to take a few years to undo the damage. i would also say the American public is a hypocritical lot. We want high wages and cheap goods. But those two things do work together so well. So manufacturing goes overseas in order to provide the cheap goods. Then we complain that all the jobs are in China. We don't want government healthcare, but we're quick to jump on the Medicare train as soon as we can. Why just the other day I was in the checkout at the store and the man in front of me, on Social Security and Medicare and sitting in a taxpayer-funded power scooter, was going on and on about how we "don't want no gub'ment healthcare".
Yes, I think charisma and intelligence are two ingredients to being a strong leader. In fact, I had hardly ever heard of Obama until 2000 when he gave his keynote speech at the convention, and as I sat there I thought that maybe we would have a Black president during my lifetime, and he would be the one. Little did I think it would happen so soon. But I also don't think that he has lived up to that potential. I contributed to his campaign and voted for him, but now I actually wish I had supported Hillary.
As for not being able to bridge the gap between the two parties...well, that's where you and I part, because if he is ever going to be looked back on as a great president, that's exactly what he has to do...to shape the debate and persuade compromise wherever possible.
But it's that word compromise that our leaders have lost the ability to do.
There's a phrase this country was founded on that has been all bot forgotten -- "the common good". The other day several of my neighbors and I were having a chat, and another neighbor joined us. Something was mentioned about politics, and off she went on a conservative/tea party/GOP rant. And here was the key -- she said if a candidate is elected by conservatives, once they are in office, they only have to listen to those conservatives. I told her she didn't understand the American system. You may run as a Republican or a Democrat, but once you are elected it is your responsibility to represent ALL the people who live in your state or district or whatever the jurisdiction is.
Frankly while I won't vote Republican EVER again, I'll also not vote in a primary for any incumbent Democrat. I know it's simplistic, but for the first time in my life I agree with the sentiment -- "throw the bums out". Because, quite simply, they're not fulfilling their oaths of office.
Does anyone here have any answers to this question?
Check out journalist Greg Palast's book: "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". When Palast discovered months in advance of the Bush-Kerry election that poor minority communities in NM had been targeted to receive faulty voting machines (this was proven in court after the election), Palast couldn't get any media outlet but NPR to report on it, and other plans election shenanigans he'd uncovered. He said he approached many newspapers and radio and tv programs about his findings, and many producers said they'd love to run the story, but their Republican-owned advertisers (or owners of the newspapers or radio stations) would never allow it.