American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416049]I am conservative, and I am glad he is there to help preserve the conservative values of this country, but if ever there was a prime example of affirmative action at work, Clarence Thomas would be it. At best, he is an average thinker and interpreter of the law.[/QUOTE]That he is quite intelligent, although I am certainly not in a position to determine if he belongs in Mensa. However, I do believe that he has what is necessary to be an excellent jurist, temperance when treading uncharted territory and deference to the Constitution. Over-intellectualizing the Constitution, selective interpretation, parsing and reading-into the Constitution have all done us a disservice and have helped lead us to our current problems.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 416054]Same as in All Countries:

How guys missed the best foreign film?

Last Year. 2010.

"The Secret is in Their Eyes."

Sex and Politico's in Buenos Aires. Same as Home.

Now on Starz. Com.

I am sure you guys can buy a copy at your local pirate newstand.

Check the internet for Something like in the "El secreto-de-sus-Ojos".

[url]http://screencrave.com/2010-03-07/os...o-de-sus-ojos/[/url]

[/QUOTE]Not sure it belongs in this thread but, I agree, great movie. I've seen it several times. Very easy to rent at Netflix.

But, in my opinion, if you want to see a better Argentine movie with Ricardo Darin, who is a very good actor, you can't go wrong with Nine Queens. It's akin to Oceans 11 but with a good plot and better acting.

Speaking of affirmative action, I can't really comment on Clarence Thomas. I haven't met him and don't know much about him. But, I do know Sonia Sotomayor. If you want to talk about affirmative action appointments, she's it. Her picture is there in the dictionary. She's a nice lady. A little crazy in a Weird Aunt Ethel sort of way. But, she's utterly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I can't tell you that Clarence Thomas is less or more qualified because, again, I don't know him. But, I can tell you that Sotomayor would rank in the bottom 10% of the lawyers I know in terms of qualifications, and I am completely leaving ideology out of this. That appointment was an utter disgrace.

The ultimate example of affirmative action is in the White House. Were Barry not black, none of us would have ever heard of him.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416064]The ultimate example of affirmative action is in the White House. Were Barry not black, none of us would have ever heard of him.[/QUOTE]I don't know what you ate this morning, but your sacarsm exceeds your ingenuity.

As with the Mideast uprisings, the time was right for Obama who happen to be black to be president. Now, had he been a darker shade of black akin to "shinining black" and had the swagger of Idi Amin, he might not have been elected. As such, he was still not "white" enough for a segment of American society, that segment that is awaiting the second coming of George Wallace. Unfortunately for that segment, they might have to annex some state and declare a new country as the United States is now a melting pot and is here to stay that way.

No offense.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416070]I don't know what you ate this morning, but your sacarsm exceeds your ingenuity.

As with the Mideast uprisings, the time was right for Obama who happen to be black to be president. Now, had he been a darker shade of black akin to "shinining black" and had the swagger of Idi Amin, he might not have been elected. As such, he was still not "white" enough for a segment of American society, that segment that is awaiting the second coming of George Wallace. Unfortunately for that segment, they might have to annex some state and declare a new country as the United States is now a melting pot and is here to stay that way.

No offense. [/QUOTE]I think his point is that many people likely voted for Obama for reasons other than the merits. I don't know whether you call that guilt or a bending-over-backwards effort to demonstrate a progressive attitude, or affirmative action. I heard so many among my circle of friends claim that Obama would never win because there were just too many Americans who were prejudice. It was always [i]the other guy[/i] Not them who was too prejudice to vote for a black man. I strongly disagreed then because I don't think there are many [i]other guys[/i] Like that in the USA any more. In fact, I think the dynamic works the opposite way."I'll show that I'm not racist by voting for the black candidate." At least in my opinion, there was more of that sentiment than stereotypical racism at play. Or, to the extent there was overt racism at play, McCain had a better claim to being a victim. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama, to a degree that far outstripped their normal allegiance to the Democrat party. There's one likely explanation for that. And, to the extent that either of these sentiments influenced someone's vote, then Obama wasn't elected on the merits, at least as to those whose vote was a product of those sentiments. Whether that's affirmative action is another matter entirely.

But, I personally don't think that's why he got elected. He got elected because:

1. He is a very, very good speaker and teleprompter reader.

2. He made many promises that people wanted to believe, even if they should have known he would never keep them.

3. He was running against an extremely weak opponent in John McCain.

4. The country was very ready for a change after 8 years of George Bush, including many in Bush's own party who felt that Bush betrayed conservative and Republican principles, and that McCain was not much better. I'm in this latter camp.

Before I get jumped on for the above: I realize this is all subjective and matter of opinion. I don't purport to have a corner on the market as to why voters did what they did. Admittedly, the above are just my speculation. But, I do think there is something to the idea that Obama picked up many votes for reasons other than the merits. I just think he would have won regardless of color.

Just to be clear, race is a non-factor in my day to day life, despite the fact that I have interracial interactions virtually every day. I don't think of people in terms of their race or creed nor I do not distinguish my friends by those categories. That doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on the politics of race.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;416070]I don't know what you ate this morning, but your sacarsm exceeds your ingenuity.[/quote]What is an example of affirmative action? A person from a 'protected' minority getting a job for which he / she is unqualified, due in part to his / her minority status.

[quote=]As with the Mideast uprisings, the time was right for Obama who happen to be black to be president.[/quote]Agreed, the timing was right. However, his being black was not coincidental with his election, it contributed significantly to his election. If he was Barry the white guy from Chicago, no one would know his name. I also doubt that too many white, dope-smoking, under performers get to transfer from Occidental to Columbia University. You might also wonder how many white, male, non-honors students get accepted to Harvard Law School? If his academic record supported anything other than the benefits of affirmative action, I think that they would be public.

[quote=]Now, had he been a darker shade of black akin to "shinining black" and had the swagger of Idi Amin, he might not have been elected.[/quote]You mean "double-dunked?" You might be right about that, I hadn't really considered it.

[quote=]As such, he was still not "white" enough for a segment of American society, that segment that is awaiting the second coming of George Wallace.[/quote]I never once heard anyone say that he wasn't white enough. However, it was clear from Sharpton and Jackson that he wasn't black enough, from their perspectives. I travel all over the US to places big and small and while I am sure there are plenty of folks with racial biases (there's at least one in the White House) , I don't think that there is a large portion of the US that would be in favor of more institutionalized racism (to be added to affirmative action, of course). Of all the people I know, I can't think of any that I would suspect would vote against a candidate solely on the basis of his skin color. There definitely aren't any that would admit it to me, if they felt that way.

[quote=]Unfortunately for that segment, they might have to annex some state and declare a new country as the United States is now a melting pot and is here to stay that way.[/quote]If there is such a contingent, I would expect that it is very small. That said, America is actually becoming less of a melting pot because many new comers never assimilate (I. E. They don't melt) , they are just foreigners living here.

[quote=]No offense.[/QUOTE]Why would I be offended?

After 26 months in office who is Barack Obama, we still don't really know. For those who believe he is a racial socialist bent on turning the US into a second European nanny state, such as myself, perhaps a second consideration is in order. Please consider the following:

Candidate Obama swore to close Gitmo and stop the 'illegal' military tribunals. President Obama made one of his first presidential orders that Gitmo be closed and the secession of trials by military tribunal. Now 26 months later there is no sign of Gitmo being closed and Obama has issued a second presidential order suspending his earlier order and permitting military tribunals to proceed.

Candidate Obama railed against the CIA program of predator attacks in Pakistan instituted by President Bush as illegal and a violation of international law, yet President Obama has not only embraced the tactic but has greatly increased the operational tempo of the program.

Candidate Obama railed against the war in Iraq as a 'bad' war and that Afghanistan was the 'good' war we should be fighting. President Obama remained on track with the Iraq draw down program established by President Bush for the 'bad' war and initially did little to combat our enemies in Afghanistan the 'good' war.

Candidate Obama railed against the Iraq war and refused to admit President Bush's surge turned the war around and led to a successful conclusion of the conflict. President Obama first personally handpicked 'his' general to run the 'good' war in Afghanistan but had to dismiss him later after the general complained about the political way President Obama was running the war. President Obama then turned to President Bush's general (Petraus) to conduct the war after sacking his own handpicked general.

President Obama even went so far to adopt President Bush's tactic of a 'surge' to reverse our losses in Afghanistan, the same tactic he refused to acknowledge as successful in Iraq yet he now employs in Afghanistan with the same results. Additonally he has backed off any hard deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan just as Bush refused any hard deadline in Iraq during most of the war.

Candidate Obama demanded universal healthcare and President Obama with a Democratic majority in both houses pushed it through. While this very unpopular law cost them the House in 2010 and probably will cost them the Senate and Presidency in 2012, the bill was not nearly as all encompassing as the healthcare law proposed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

Candidate Obama acknowledged his lack of foreign policy experience and brought Biden on to remedy this short coming. Now in the light of the unrest sweeping the middle east and President Obama and his appointees inability to speak with one voice (Obama says one thing, Clinton another and Gates still another) , coupled with Obama's constant equivocation on what his 'policy' is making it difficult for anyone to know where he stands since he is constantly changing his stance. At least with Reagan and Bush everyone friend or foe knew where they stood – with Obama no one knows.

Candidate / President Obama has attempted to make every Democratic wet dream come true. So does this make Obama a wild eyed socialists or just another Big Government, Tax and Spend, Liberal Democrat who believes the answer to all ills is bigger government?

So long as his radical friends were helpful he used them but as soon as they became a problem and / or once he reached his goal (being elected) the threw them under the bus (Ayers and Wright are just two examples)

I have come to the conclusion there is no 'real' Barack Obama to stand up, only the sham who has for years promoted himself from one position to the next higher position. A gifted reader of a teleprompter, he promotes the liberal ideas of his party but has shown he has no real core beliefs of his own beyond self promotion. He has no problem using people to attain his goals then disgarding them, the same with "beliefs". IMHO he represents a hollow being full of sound and fury but of no substance.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416085]I have come to the conclusion there is no 'real' Barack Obama to stand up, only the sham who has for years promoted himself from one position to the next higher position. A gifted reader of a teleprompter, he promotes the liberal ideas of his party but has shown he has no real core beliefs of his own beyond self promotion. He has no problem using people to attain his goals then disgarding them, the same with "beliefs". IMHO he represents a hollow being full of sound and fury but of no substance.[/QUOTE]Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416085]After 26 months in office who is Barack Obama, we still don't really know. For those who believe he is a racial socialist bent on turning the US into a second European nanny state, such as myself, perhaps a second consideration is in order. [/QUOTE]A good post. But, I'm not sure it means there is no "real" Barack Obama. Instead, one might interpret it as: He was incredibly naive on the campaign trail.

The first four or five points you made pertain to Iraq, Afghanistan or Gitmo. On war-related topics, there's no doubt he hasn't followed through on his campaign promises and / or he's done the exact same thing as the predecessor who he railed against. But, I just think this shows how inexperienced, idealistic and naive he is. On the Gitmo point, though, please note that he recently acknowledged that he has failed to close it, but he promised that he will, in fact, close it. This will be a campaign issue. If he hasn't closed it by next June or so, he will be accused of being either naive or a liar. It's one thing to make hopey changey promises before you know all the facts, but he recently reaffirmed all that. He can't claim to be naive any longer.

If you don't believe he's naive, then perhaps another description might fit."He's a politician." He'll say anything to get elected and re-elected. I think this also may be apt, but I'm not sure I believe he was smart enough to know that he couldn't fulfill all his promises. With most politicians, folks have a certain amount of skepticism. The difference with Obama was that he was better able than most to convince folks that he really meant what he said and would follow through. I think that's mostly because he believed it. When he didn't on most things, it became obvious he either was a hypocrite or foolish or both, and that's what brought you the 2010 election results. His base was disillusioned and stayed home. The significant, lone exception was ObamaCare. And, he would have done better fulfilling nearly any other campaign promise other than that one. It was a disastrous first two years, but there's still plenty of time for him to turn that around.

Stan you could be right, but I think you are just being charitable about his naivety. I still believe he has no values or principles beyond promoting himself.

He got the "Big Job" but is totally unprepared for what it requires. The Peter Principle in action. Promoted one rung above his competence, perhaps several rungs above it.

There is a vast difference between campaigning and governing and he has no concept of what the word means as evidenced by his continuing to campaign for several months after he was sworn into office.

I believe 2012 will be a case of 'fool me once shame on me, fool me twice. ' I don't believe there is anything he can do to overcome the negative perception he keeps creating as evidenced by his declining poll numbers. I expect him to be in the upper 30's by election day and no one can win re-election from there.

[Sigh] This is what passes for journalism from the Associated Press these days:

"MADISON, Wis. – With the labor movement suffering an epic defeat in Wisconsin and perhaps other states, union leaders plan to use the setback to fire up their members nationwide and mount a major counterattack against Republicans at the ballot box in 2012."

Full article here:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions[/url]

Would someone tell these ignoramuses that unions have been mounting a major attack against Republicans for the PAST 30 YEARS!

Despite all the talk of corporate donors and the Koch Brothers, unions are easily the largest campaign contributors each year.

99% of their campaign contributions go to Democrats.

What does the media think that is? A subtle hint? A waste of the other 1%

So now the union bosses are going to get the union lackeys out for a vote? Good luck with that. They're already the vast majority of Democrat support. Unless they go with the Chicago tradition, vote early and vote often, there's not much more vote to get out.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416085]After 26 months in office who is Barack Obama, we still don't really know. For those who believe he is a racial socialist bent on turning the US into a second European nanny state, such as myself, perhaps a second consideration is in order. Please consider the following:[/QUOTE]Your post has too many distortions to be taken for anything other than another hollow right wing smear piece.

The fact is Obama is more intelligent and pragmatic than your average politician. He has correctly identified America's main problem -- accelerating plutocracy -- and is ready to take concrete steps to address it.

After the epic disaster of conservative ideology from Bush's presidency, the Great Recession was ended within Obama's first year, followed by passage of historic healthcare and financial reform. The 111th Congress was one of the most productive and progressive in decades.

The great lengths to which Obama's opponents go to attempt to paint him as a failure, are a sign that the truth may be just the opposite. One look at Doppel's piece below and you know this took some time and effort to put together. The obvious distortions in it are also a sign that crafting a credible smear against Obama is not straightforward.

The recent move to the center was predictable. He realizes his legislative achievements are enough for one term, and the focus must be on preserving them with a 2012 win. He is also setting the stage for an inevitable choice in 2012: balancing the budget through spending cuts alone, or a more reasoned approach of spending cuts and tax increases. Some liberals are not pleased about Obama's more centrist tone, but this is all about pragmatism and strategy.

I expect Obama to prevail in 2012, and my hope is he spends more time in his second term talking about how free market capitalism is only making the rich richer at the expense of the middle class and poor.

Finally a lesson in leadership, A great day for Wisconsin and a great example for America.


[b]Thank you Gov. Scott Walker![/b]

[QUOTE=Toymann;416034]Come on Esten, you got to do better than this? You started this conversation with you're statement that Bush was responsible for the deficit. Right! Both the democratic house and senate have set and passed the budget (until recently) since 2007. As WW points out, the exacerbation of these events have escalated dramatically under Obominations watch. Please elaborate how it's all W's fault. Inquiring minds want to know.[/QUOTE]I've explained this before, including the post you are referring to. Did you just gloss over the following:

[QUOTE=Esten; 415979]The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama. The Stimulus and other recent spending are large but temporary, and more importantly, are outsized by the ongoing impact of the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars and economic downturn tax revenue loss resulting from conservative ideology under Bush.

I've posted this link a couple times before, and here it is once again, see Figure 1:

Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years.

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036[/url]

[/QUOTE]That's only about the fifth time I've posted that link. Toymann please spend some time reading it.

As I've said before, it's not all Bush's fault. That's the Republican mantra. When I called it "Bush's debt", I explained that the debt is a legacy of conservative ideology under Bush. The most important of these ideologies being on taxation and de-regulation.

Two importants points to remember:
1. Deficits have two components: revenue and spending.
2. These two components are subject to existing laws, and are not entirely adjustable by any given Congress.

If we are to assign 'blame', the most meaningful way to look at things is to see where deficit components have come from. Toymann, do some research on what our recent deficits would have looked like without the following conservative-inspired or caused items:

- Two unfunded wars.
- Unfunded Medicare Part D.
- Bush tax cuts.
- Federal rescue efforts for Financial Crisis.
- Loss of tax revenues from Great Recession.

You will see Toymann, when you look at the facts, Republicans and conservative ideology are responsible for most big-ticket items impacting federal debt. Without these items, we would be running budget surpluses. Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.

[QUOTE=Esten;416099]Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.[/QUOTE]Of course, two+ years later, and it's still George Bush's fault!

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

Jackson