Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

So is Obama so far anyway, turning out to be one of weakest presidents?


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't say he is our worst president, plenty of people hold that title though he could end up joining them.

At least so far though, he does appear to be among one of our weakest presidents. He could still turn that around but I think his one big weakness will hold him back. Obama isn't a leader, he's a follower.

From the stimulus to healthcare to foreign policy to etc.... He hasn't really led, he's let others do the work.

Nancy Pelosi and the democrats crafted the stimulus and healthcare. Obama needed 6 months to decide he was going to double down in Afghanistan. Libya coalition is already faltering.

I don't agree with him on alot of issues but if this man hasn't shown me know leadership skills. I really don't know what this country will look like after 2017 if he's still in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were to assume, for argument's sake, that Obama is weak, wouldn't that undercut the argument that Obama's policies are ruining the country? I think there's a great deal of tension between the arguments that (1) Obama is a do-nothing, weak President and (2) Obama is pushing through radical changes that are going to wreck the country.

Personally, I don't think he's "weak" (though I wouldn't say he's "strong"). He is, however, a much more contemplative President than GWB. Decisiveness is a virtue, provided "The Decider" is making the right decisions. Indecision is a vice, provided there's a clear cut answer.

With respect to your claim that Obama was too slow to "double down" in Afghanistan, I would hope that a President would "double down" only after having viewed the appropriate intelligence reports, consulted with the appropriate military personnel, and given that momentous decision its due consideration. Additionally, I do not agree that the tenuous nature of the "anti-Ghaddafi" coalition evidences Obama's weakness. I think that any such coalition would be weak given the nature of the conflict (i.e., a civil war).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people over-estimate the "weak" and "strong" thing when it comes to leadership. Everyone wants their boss to be Vince Lombardi - until they actually get a boss that behaves like Vince Lombardi. And then you want to quit.

The way to judge Obama is simple:

1. What were his goals?

2. Has he achieved those?

1. Assuming that the healthcare reform survives the court challanges, it will be the single most important piece of government legislation since Medicare. And it will be a victory that eluded every single president since Nixon.

2. At the end of his first term, he will have met all of his promises on Iraq.

3. The auto industry bailout is controversial, but - at the moment - we actually seem to have hope for a sustainable auto industry in this country. I'm not sure you could have that hope three years ago.

4. The repeal of DADT is quite possibly the single greatest civil rights victory since the ADA in the early 90s.

5. TARP was not his initiative but he has overseen it to the point that 75 percent of it has been repaid.

6. I'm not a huge fan of the Wall Street Reforms that have been passed, but they are better than nothing and better than what we had. The derivatives market is not the Wild Wild West any longer at the very least.

7. Credit Cards saw their first major regulation in, well, forever.

8. Passed a very broad stimulus bill.

9. His reform of student loans is probably the second most important moment of his presidency and never gets looked at.

10. Has seen several major crises on his watch that have been handled about as well as expected - Gulf Oil Spill, Haiti, and Japan. There has certainly not been a "You're doing a heckuva a job, Brownie" moment there.

Could be be "stronger" in foreign policy? I suppose so. Foreign policy is generally not something presidents can direct though. It - more often than not - directs them. George HW Bush gets credit for overseeing the dismantling of communism in Eastern Europe. But I was 17 in 1989 and watched CNN. I remember that for several weeks, Bush, Congress, our allies, and entire DC press corps seemed to have no idea what was going in Europe.

If you recall, Margaret Thathcher announced that it was not in the West's interests for the Warsaw Pact to break up. Bush met with Gorbachev a month after the opening of the Berlin Wall and told him that the US had no interest in pushing for German unification and - essentially - said that East Germany was still in the Soviet sphere of influence. Bush does deserve credit for getting out of the way. And - often - in foregin policy that's the best you can do.

And that brings us to Egypt, Libyia, Tunisia, etc. Obama has apparently tried to let events happen and then try to steer them to some kind of soft landing. I actually think his handling of Egypt was masterful. Mubarek is gone but alive. The protestors are home. The military is in control. And, now, we will see what the transition shall be. Short of invading and installing a puppet government, this is the best that could be hoped for. We didn't sell out an ally, but we also did not impose our will on the Egyptian street. And there was limited bloodshed in a situation that could have quickly spun out of control.

Libya is a different animal as it has been - historically - hostile to the US and is run by a true lunatic. I'm not 100 percent convinced that we are doing the right thing here, but what I do like is that Obama recognizes it as more of a European issue than an American issue. Europe is engaged with Libya. We are not. Hence, Europe is leading. Sort of. As much as Europe ever leads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say he is our worst president, plenty of people hold that title though he could end up joining them.

At least so far though, he does appear to be among one of our weakest presidents. He could still turn that around but I think his one big weakness will hold him back. Obama isn't a leader, he's a follower.

From the stimulus to healthcare to foreign policy to etc.... He hasn't really lead, he's let others do the work.

Nancy Pelosi and the democrats crafted the stimulus and healthcare. Obama needed 6 months to decide he was going to double down in Afghanistan. Libya coalition is already faltering.

I don't agree with him on alot of issues but if this man has show me know leadership skills. I really don't know what this country will look like after 2017 if he's still in power.

Let's see, early elementary school grammar, we'll say starting around age 8...current age 42...subtract 34 years....we are looking at 1977....

Conclusion: I blame Jimmy Carter for the state of education in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Obama inherited the worst economic and military situation the country had been in for 60-70 years, and some folks are wanting to suggest Obama created the mess....

If I had one critism of Obama is he's too much like Bill Clinton. He's too Pragmatic and not open enough or willing to push enough for entirely new solutions. Out of the box thinking.

Over all though many folks typically consider that a strength rather than a weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Madison Redskin, no way Obama can be both "weak" and "ruining this country" at the same time. You have to pick one or the other, you can't have it both ways. And yet, they will certainly try.

Of course "they" will, as evidenced by my post above. :rolleyes:

Geez. At least wait for the attack just once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had one critism of Obama is he's too much like Bill Clinton. He's too Pragmatic and not open enough or willing to push enough for entirely new solutions. Out of the box thinking.

Over all though many folks typically consider that a strength rather than a weakness.

Unfortunately, radical Democrats can't get elected. LBJ was the last Democrat with any truly radical ideas, and that was not exaclty expected from him. Carter, Clinton, and Obama are all reflective wonky pragmatists when it comes to policy. (Carter had one truly radical idea in that he tied foreign policy to human rights).

We just had 8 years of radical policy - especially in foreign policy. I'm not sure the country is equipped to deal with a radical shift to the Left anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course "they" will, as evidenced by my post above. :rolleyes:

Geez. At least wait for the attack just once.

H_H, if the shoe doesn't fit then don't wear it, if you're not the "they" then you're not, on the other hand you and I both know that there are a lot of "they's" who fit those shoes perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's kept everything pretty much the same as when he got in:

- Kept taxes low, especially for the rich

- Highly active military

- Huge deficit spending

Not much has changed since he went into office.

Add corporate bailouts. Gitmo still going strong.

The only difference between he and GWB is the libs on this board are defending him for doing the same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's kept everything pretty much the same as when he got in:

- Kept taxes low, especially for the rich

- Highly active military

- Huge deficit spending

Not much has changed since he went into office.

Agreed on all counts, but that's not "pretty much the same" insofar as the changes that he has brought about; Health Care Reform being among them.

The failure to close Gitmo is still a bloody shame IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's been surprisingly strong, actually, when it comes to foreign policy. And my domestic concerns are more of a disagreement in principle than perceiving him to be weak.

I agree. Ideology differences aside, for a "raw" inexperienced president coming into a cluster-**** of major magnitude on numerous levels, he has done far better than he gets credit for from many of his critics. I say that while still being disappointed in the divergence from much of his campaign rhetoric and his accomplishments to date. I predict he will be re-elected and historically reviewed much more positively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The failure to close Gitmo is still a bloody shame IMO.

That's my big disappointment with him. Of course, I don't know what you can do with those prisoners short of putting them in a halfway house in Baltimore - which would seem to be controversial.

The big problem for Obama is expectations and his pace. I think a lot of us who voted for him counted on a much more radical departure from the Bush years. Obama seems to operate on his own time-table - and that one seems to be (dangerously) an 8-year-time table.

I have little doubt that if he wins a second term, the country will be dramatically different from the one he inherited. I think a lot of us were - perhaps childishly - expecting that within 2 years.

It's sort of amazing that we have an extremely mature, extremely careful, extremely boring president...and it disappoints us. Clinton had that animal magnetism that made him appear to be radical even when his policies were not. And Bush seemed to make most of his major decisions within five minutes of being presented the issue - and while reading the box scores in USA Today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add corporate bailouts. Gitmo still going strong.

The only difference between he and GWB is the libs on this board are defending him for doing the same things.

Well the bailouts were one place where we actually agreed with Bush since he was the one who set those up, ya'll hated that idea, so you can't give that one to Obama.

As for the Libs defending Obama for doing the same things that Bush did, I don't see it; in fact I see Libs still angry that Gitmo is not closed, that we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many libs were furious over the continued tax breaks for the rich, and now this move on Libya. It seems to me that if you think that Libs are defending Obama for being the same as Bush then you need to listen to more Libs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Ideology differences aside, for a "raw" inexperienced president coming into a cluster-**** of major magnitude on numerous levels, he has done far better than he gets credit for from many of his critics. I say that while still being disappointed in the divergence from much of his campaign rhetoric and his accomplishments to date. I predict he will be re-elected and historically reviewed much more positively.

I agree with that entirely. I expect his re-election to be even more comfortable than his win the first time around. Afterall, the one major concern many of us on both sides had was (oversimplifying drastically) "How is a community organizer/freshman senator going to handle international affairs without any executive experience?"

Asked and answered, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my big disappointment with him. Of course' date=' I don't know what you can do with those prisoners short of putting them in a halfway house in Baltimore - which would seem to be controversial.[/quote']

Agreed, and what's sadly ironic is that we house criminals like these all the time and worse in prisons, and there were states willing to take them but the GOP blocked it from happening, and Obama wanted the Health Care Reform (eventually caving on the most important part of it--public option) so he stopped pushing for Gitmo's closure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my big disappointment with him. Of course' date=' I don't know what you can do with those prisoners short of putting them in a halfway house in Baltimore - which would seem to be controversial.[/quote']My buddy in the Navy told me the other day that there are 27 people at GITMO and every single one is going to die there. Obama's pre-election rhetoric was trumped by the intelligence reports he read once assuming office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has certainly accomplished more than he's been given credit for. he actually has managed to push an impressive amount of legislation through the sausage factory. but he's doing a poor job of setting the narrative agenda in the plublic forum. it seems like he is totally letting conservatives drive the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My buddy in the Navy told me the other day that there are 27 people at GITMO and every single one is going to die there. Obama's pre-election rhetoric was trumped by the intelligence reports he read once assuming office.

I think it's a combination of finding out that these a) are, in fact, bad guys and B) it is impossible to give them a fair trial in the criminal courts due to the actions of the Bush administration. They would all be released immediately for having their rights to a speedy trial violated if they were put in the federal courts now.

The only way to effectively close Gitmo is to find a country willing to accept deportation of them.

---------- Post added March-23rd-2011 at 12:26 PM ----------

If you call "I want Healthcare reform, ya'll throw something together and I'll sign it" leadership........then I guess you got it by the bucketloads :paranoid:

Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and W all tried to get major healthcare reform and all failed.

Did I want the public option? Yes. Hell, I want Canada's system.

Am I amazed that ANYTHING got passed? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...