Where did Obama go Wrong?

[thebluefood]

He continued failed Bush policies and compounded the damage by proposing massive new spending and debt on top of it all. Coupled with a failure to protect individual liberty and freedom, he blew it.

This.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

His biggest failure is communicating, which I don't see up there.

[brandymac27]

I agree with that. Obama sold the American public on the fundimental corruption of the healthcare system; and then rather than construct something better; he did what every president since Johnson has done, plastered over the existing system with moderate reforms.

Left the right enraged, and the left dumbfounded.

Maybe what we got is better than what we had, but it's a compromise nobody could claim victory through. A compromise which was offensive to both sides. I think Obama's willingness to comprimose was rightfully seen as a sign of weakness by the country. Obama should have realized immediately that the GOP had rigid disiplne and wasn't going to give him any support for any compromise; worse they were going to blast him as a dictator regardless of his reaching out to them. They fundementally rejected his entire concept of reform.

That is the saddest part about ALL of this. That compromise is now being played off or seen as a sign of weakness. It is what has made me ultimately lose all faith in this government.

[alexey]

So the people are so dumb that you should lie to them and not tell them the reality of the situation is that we might be looking at an extended economic slow down until there is a pretty dramatic shift in technology that improves the effeciency of the world's economy as the computer revolution did?

He showed that kind of leadership in the campaign. After all, he did pretty much tell the people that he would transform the nature of political discourse in America.

Ironically enough, I think inexperience played a big role in this. Although it's not the kind of executive inexperience the right talked about - he is doing a pretty good job actually running the country. imho the problem was lack of legislative experience at the national level and maybe not willing to have confrontations with Democrats in the Senate. Maybe in the way he relates to the Senate he did not properly transform from the junior senator to the big boss.

[JMS]

That is the saddest part about ALL of this. That compromise is now being played off or seen as a sign of weakness. It is what has made me ultimately lose all faith in this government.

It's one thing to compromise when you are in the minority in one of the houses. It's an entirely different thing to comprimise with a near super majority in both houses.

[brandymac27]

It's one thing to compromise when you are in the minority in one of the houses. It's an entirely different thing to comprimise with a near super majority in both houses.

IMO, the only way to get back to the center is for there to be compromise, whether you're of the majority or not.

[JMS]

Ironically enough, I think inexperience played a big role in this. Although it's not the kind of executive inexperience the right talked about - he is doing a pretty good job actually running the country. imho the problem was lack of legislative experience at the national level and maybe not willing to have confrontations with Democrats in the Senate. Maybe in the way he relates to the Senate he did not properly transform from the junior senator to the big boss.

I agree with you that Obama is competent. His problem is he ran as a transformative figure. Someone who was going to change how the system works. Since being elected he's shown himself to be pragmatic insider rather than a transfomative outside reformer. A poor insider at that.

[JMS]

IMO, the only way to get back to the center is for there to be compromise, whether you're of the majority or not.

IMO the center is not where the votes are.

Clinton put his finger to the wind and pushed to the center on every issue. This pissed off the fringes of both parties and kept him in office for eight years.

Those days are over. Bush got elected in 2004 by pushing to the far right and energizing his base. In that election the loosing Democrat ( Kerry ) got significantly more votes than any Democrat in history and still lost the election.

I think Obama did hold the middle ground in 2010. That still meant an energized GOP base, and a disenfranchised Democratic base.

[McD5]

He mistakingly thought his election meant that the country favored a liberal agenda. The country doesn't want a liberal agenda. Nor do they want an ultra-conservative agenda.

"Liberal" is back to being a four letter word again.

[Chicken Fried]

He spent money like it was going out of style combined with the fact that we don't have any money to spend.

[JMS]

He mistakingly thought his election meant that the country favored a liberal agenda. The country doesn't want a liberal agenda. Nor do they want an ultra-conservative agenda.

"Liberal" is back to being a four letter word again.

Obama's not a liberal. We havent' had a liberal or Progressive President in the United States since LBJ. The fact that he was painted as a liberal says more about the superiority of the GOP political machine and the incompetence of the Dems in defining themselves.

[DeanCollins]

none of the above, Obama wasn't able to fix the economy quickly enough (1.66 years?) that took 8 years to run into the ground.

[Fergasun]

Is this a joke? Obama didn't do anything wrong. He was given a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a wide majority in the House. He govorned as such and the Democrats achived major victories in areas they were struggling for so long.

1) Health Care

2) Financial Reform

3) Bailing out the Auto Companies.

However, we live in a moderate country, so of course this was going to happen. The fact that he got such a backlash signifies the amount of changes that he made. I have no idea why Democrats would be sad today, they had two years to run the country and I think achieved some of their objectives.

[JMS]

He spent money like it was going out of style combined with the fact that we don't have any money to spend.

Again, great GOP spin and incompetent Dems in getting their message out.

In Obama's first budget Passed he cut the deficit by about 300 billion dollars or 3 times what the GOP pledged to cut the deficite if they were returned to the majority in the house in the midterm election.

]

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

President ____________ Year______________ Increase in Debt

Clinton ______________ 2001______________+ $ 130 Billion

Bush _______________ 2002______________+ $ 430 Billion

Bush _______________ 2003______________+ $ 450 Billion

Bush _______________ 2004______________+ $ 600 Billion

Bush _______________ 2005______________+ $ 600 Billion

Bush _______________ 2006______________+ $ 600 Billion

Bush _______________ 2007______________+ $ 500 Billion

Bush _______________ 2008______________+ $ 1,000 Billion

Bush _______________ 2009______________+ $ 1.900 Billion

Obama______________ 2010______________+ $ 1,600 Billion

Facts are if you look at our 13 Trillion dollar deficit; Since 1976 3 Republican Presidents have run up about 9 Trilion of it. The three democratic Presidents acount for about 2 trillion of it and Obama's first buget Passed accounts for most of that 2 trillion, (* Jimmy Carter inherited a 600 billion dollar debt.).. I remember Reagan pounded Jimmy as the tax and spend Democrat and then proceeded to increase the size of the national debt by nearly 260% over eight years..

It's simple delusional to paint Dems as the party of big spending and the GOP the party of fiscal responsibility. But that's what the American people believe because that's what they are told, and they don't bother checking out the numbers themselves.

[deejaydana]

For me it was his admitting he was a Bulls and not a Lakers fan.

[Art Monk Fan]

He was doomed from the start. He has even said about himself that he was a sort of Rorschach test for voters. His lack of time in lower office and limited experience meant he had no real substantive record for voters to review. In the absence of this, people heard what they wanted to when he spoke. Ten people at the same speech were coming away with 10 different understandings of where he stood on issues and what he would do in office. It helped him gain widespread support, but to govern is to choose and there was no way he was ever going to please that diverse of a following.

[Mursilis]

Again, great GOP spin and incompetent Dems in getting their message out.

In Obama's first budget Passed he cut the deficit by about 300 billion dollars or 3 times what the GOP pledged to cut the deficite if they were returned to the majority in the house.

Facts are if you look at our 13 Trillion dollar deficit; Since 1976 3 Republican Presidents have run up about 10 Trilion of it. The three democratic Presidents acount for about 3 trillion of it and Obama's first buget Passed accounts for about 2 of that 3 billion, Jimmy Carter inherited a 600 billion dollar debt... I remember Reagan pounded Jimmy as the tax and spend Democrat and then proceeded to increase the size of the national debt by nearly 260% over eight years..

It's simple delusional to paint Dems as the party of big spending and the GOP the party of fiscal responsibility. But that's what the American people believe because that's what they are told, and they don't bother checking out the numbers themselves.

You need to read Article I, Sections 8 & 9, of the U.S. Constitution, and then get back to us on who actually collects and spends the money. Hint: It's not the president.

[JMS]

Is this a joke? Obama didn't do anything wrong. He was given a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a wide majority in the House. He govorned as such and the Democrats achived major victories in areas they were struggling for so long.

1) Health Care

Healthcare reform was a very modest reform package. It was revenue neutral over the first ten years and did not contain the most agresive and controversial aspects of the reform first proposed... ( public option, or universal coverage)...

2) Financial Reform

Was also a total compromise. IT didn't contain a meaningful borrowers bill or rights, it didn't contain limits on the lenders jacking up your rates. It didn't contain limits on penelties. It didn't really change anything except requiring the lenders to inform the borrowers of when the rates changed.

3) Bailing out the Auto Companies.

Bailing out the Auto Companies wasn't a legislative victory. Obama used TARP funds which the Bush administration passed under Bush.

However, we live in a moderate country, so of course this was going to happen. The fact that he got such a backlash signifies the amount of changes that he made. I have no idea why Democrats would be sad today, they had two years to run the country and I think achieved some of their objectives.

I don't think Dems achieved much. I think that's why the voters left them. I don't see the vote as an endorsement of the GOP any more than Obama's election in 2008 was an endorsement of the Dems. Both elections were a reformation against the party in power, not an endorsemnt of the party out of power.

[JMS]

You need to read Article I, Sections 8 & 9, of the U.S. Constitution, and then get back to us on who actually collects and spends the money. Hint: It's not the president.

Technically true, the house has the power of the purse.

For all practical purposes though False . The President has a very powerful voice in the process. Ultimately he has the final voice..

Reagan had everything to do with the House increasing the defense spending a few 100% under his administration.... Just like Bush had everything to do with social and military spending going up for most of his years in office.

[JMS]

none of the above, Obama wasn't able to fix the economy quickly enough (1.66 years?) that took 8 years to run into the ground.

Wow Dean. That's a suprising statement coming from you. I always thought of you as a Bush "conservative" supporter over the years. Could this mean you and I are having a similiar reaction to the GOP's spending polciies?

[Mursilis]

Technically true, the house has the power of the purse.

For all practical purposes though False . The President has a very powerful voice in the process. Ultimately he has the final voice..

Powerful voice? Yes. Most people know the president's name, but few could name more than 10 Congress members. Final voice? No, but members of Congress (of both parties) would love for you to believe that, so they can deflect blame for spending recklessly.

[Henry]

You need to read Article I, Sections 8 & 9, of the U.S. Constitution, and then get back to us on who actually collects and spends the money. Hint: It's not the president.

Ah. So Obama spent like it was going out of style, unless it's pointed out that it was actually Bush that spent like it's going out of style ... in which case it's Congress' fault.

And that, folks, is where Obama went wrong.

[Prosperity]

The near historic reversal of fortune in the midterm election for Democrats is a reflection of the nations opinion of Obama...... The nation which elected him in 2008 either rejected his policies, or failed to turn out and support him in 2010. Why?

he didn't "fix" the economy, whatever that means

[Mursilis]

none of the above, Obama wasn't able to fix the economy quickly enough (1.66 years?) that took 8 years to run into the ground.

Then he shouldn't have campaigned that he was going to do so. The Democrats routinely campaign like a hopelessly in-love new boyfriend - they promise the sun, the moon, and the stars. Free healthcare! Longer unemployment benefits! A robust economy! If you promise the voters a rose garden, you'd better deliver. And if your promises are foolish, then who's fault is that?

And before anyone blows a gasket, yes, the GOP regularly makes promises they can't/won't keep either, but they've never claimed to be the "gov't is the answer" party. They're more the "we have no great answers" party who gets elected only because the Dems screw-up royally on a frequent basis.

[JMS]

Powerful voice? Yes. Most people know the president's name, but few could name more than 10 Congress members. Final voice? No, but members of Congress (of both parties) would love for you to believe that, so they can deflect blame for spending recklessly.

The budget has to get passed both houses. A veto by the president means it needs a sixty vote majority in the senate. The President is the only member of the process who has the resources to actually disect the budget proposals; he also coordinates all the votes in his party in this process, and has the ultimate say as to whether what comes out of the house becomes law.