FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama's Brilliant First Year. Most active since Roosevelt





handfleisch
http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/?from=rss

Quote:
Obama's Brilliant First Year

By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt.

...This conventional wisdom about Obama's first year isn't just premature—it's sure to be flipped on its head by the anniversary of his inauguration on Jan. 20. If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging record—how many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office...

...We are so submerged in the details of this debate—whether the bill will include a "public option," limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox—that it's easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government's role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism...

...Obama's claim to a fertile first year doesn't rest on health care alone. There's mounting evidence that the $787 billion economic stimulus he signed in February—combined with the bank bailout package—prevented an economic depression. Should the stimulus have been larger? Should it have been more weighted to short-term spending, as opposed to long-term tax cuts? Would a second round be a good idea? Pundits and policymakers will argue these questions for years to come. But few mainstream economists seriously dispute that Obama's decisive action prevented a much deeper downturn and restored economic growth in the third quarter. The New York Times recently quoted Mark Zandi, who was one of candidate John McCain's economic advisers, on this point: "The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do—it is contributing to ending the recession," he said. "In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent."

When it comes to foreign policy, Obama's accomplishment has been less tangible but hardly less significant: He has put America on a new footing with the rest of the world. In a series of foreign trips and speeches, which critics deride as trips and speeches, he replaced George W. Bush's unilateral, moralistic militarism with an approach that is multilateral, pragmatic, and conciliatory. Obama has already significantly reoriented policy toward Iran, China, Russia, Iraq, Israel, and the Islamic world. Next week, after a much-disparaged period of review, he will announce a new strategy in Afghanistan. No, the results do not yet merit his Nobel Peace Prize. But not since Reagan has a new president so swiftly and determinedly remodeled America's global role.


Let it roll
deanhills
If Obama's performance has been so supposedly great, why has his job ratings slipped so badly? He started with an approval rating of 68% on 21 January and is down to 49% on 24 November:

Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm and with courtesy to Ocalhoun who quoted this graph in the Obama Poll thread.
ocalhoun
Oh, he's been very busy, yes...
But it's quite possible to be very busy doing ill-advised and/or nefarious things.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Oh, he's been very busy, yes...
But it's quite possible to be very busy doing ill-advised and/or nefarious things.
I would definitely give him and Michelle a prize for marketing. They really look great, always sparkling and at their very best. They make good pictures. What he lacks however is his tendency to delay things, he has been delaying GITMO processing, he is delaying decisions on war troops to Afghanistan ....
jwellsy
They left out:
-most rounds of golf
-most time spent playing basketball
-most number of self declared Communists, Maoists, Marxists, Socialists and every flavor of radical appointee
-More spending than every previous administration combined
-Most bowing at the waist to foreign heads of states
-most number of social events held in White House
-most apologetic
-most disdain for the US Constitution and Capitolism
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
They left out:
-most rounds of golf
-most time spent playing basketball

I am all for sports for the President. The more active and fit the President is, the better a President he can be. He and Michelle must be of the healthiest Presidential couples ever in terms of regular work outs and fitness.

jwellsy wrote:
-most number of self declared Communists, Maoists, Marxists, Socialists and every flavor of radical appointee
I'm happy for this. People always come out sooner of later, although I don't know how wise that is, as if they are politicians it probably will count against them at an appropriate future moment.
jwellsy wrote:
-More spending than every previous administration combined
-Most bowing at the waist to foreign heads of states
-most number of social events held in White House
-most apologetic
All of that is true. Especially the spending part. The bowing, especially for someone of his height and as deep as he bowed must have came across very artificial so he lost both at home and to the people he tried to impress.

jwellsy wrote:
-most disdain for the US Constitution and Capitolism
I can't really agree with that. He does show a lot of respect to everyone, maybe too much to the extent that it is working against the constitution and capitalism, although capitalism and the constitution were already an endangered species already long before he took over the presidency. That cannot only be the fault of the Presidents however, but people who too easily give their power away to representatives who make legislation that rob them of their freedom and rights.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
They left out:
-most rounds of golf
-most time spent playing basketball
-most number of self declared Communists, Maoists, Marxists, Socialists and every flavor of radical appointee
-More spending than every previous administration combined
-Most bowing at the waist to foreign heads of states
-most number of social events held in White House
-most apologetic
-most disdain for the US Constitution and Capitolism


LOL. Thanks for the usual comic relief. Palin-Bigfoot 2012!
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
If Obama's performance has been so supposedly great, why has his job ratings slipped so badly? He started with an approval rating of 68% on 21 January and is down to 49% on 24 November:

Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm and with courtesy to Ocalhoun who quoted this graph in the Obama Poll thread.


I'd venture a guess that it is because he has been 'busy' but doing some things that people
don't approve of. Unfortunately for Obama, not everyone is like handfleisch....and I'm not
just talking about the Republicans or the 'far right' voters. Obama's support has slipped
badly among independent voters. But of course, that may change by the time he comes up
for reelection if he is able to turn around the economy. However, I don't think it will change
in time for the Democrats as I expect them to lose a significant amount of seats during the 2010
congressional election. When the economy sucks, the voters tend to 'throw out' the party in power.
lagoon
Even over here in Britain, Obama has been chastised for delaying over sending more troops to Afghanistan... not surprised by the polls to be honest.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
Even over here in Britain, Obama has been chastised for delaying over sending more troops to Afghanistan... not surprised by the polls to be honest.
I was waiting for that. I think he has already been criticized by some groups in the UK with regard to his GITMO processing delays as there had been huge expectations following his presidential campaign and speeches. In the end one President is probably not that much different from the other one as both have to deal with the same challenges and have to face the same limitations and work within the same limited system. Only really difference is that the one likes to bow and delay, while the other one was not into bowing and arrogant but did act expeditiously, too fast at times.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
lagoon wrote:
Even over here in Britain, Obama has been chastised for delaying over sending more troops to Afghanistan... not surprised by the polls to be honest.
I was waiting for that. I think he has already been criticized by some groups in the UK with regard to his GITMO processing delays as there had been huge expectations following his presidential campaign and speeches. In the end one President is probably not that much different from the other one as both have to deal with the same challenges and have to face the same limitations and work within the same limited system. Only really difference is that the one likes to bow and delay, while the other one was not into bowing and arrogant but did act expeditiously, too fast at times.


Don't believe the propaganda about the "delay". Bush was requested by the Gen. David McKiernan to send more troops to Afghanistan in 2008 and never did it. That was the real delay. Obama has finally answered the generals' concerns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602304_pf.html
Quote:
By late last summer, he decided to tell George W. Bush's White House what he knew it did not want to hear: He needed 30,000 more troops. He wanted to send some to the country's east to bolster other U.S. forces, and some to the south to assist overwhelmed British and Canadian units in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

The Bush administration opted not to act on McKiernan's request and instead set out to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops.


Where were all the Republicans screaming about the "delay" back then? Bush never responded, and instead kept on with his private project war in Iraq. Now we are paying the price, and Obama is doing what he can.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Don't believe the propaganda about the "delay". Bush was requested by the Gen. David McKiernan to send more troops to Afghanistan in 2008 and never did it. That was the real delay.
Why did Bush not send any troops? Was it perhaps Congress who was against it? And the majority in Congress were Democrats? He did not try? You have to be joking!

handfleisch wrote:
Obama has finally answered the generals' concerns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602304_pf.html
Quote:
By late last summer, he decided to tell George W. Bush's White House what he knew it did not want to hear: He needed 30,000 more troops. He wanted to send some to the country's east to bolster other U.S. forces, and some to the south to assist overwhelmed British and Canadian units in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

The Bush administration opted not to act on McKiernan's request and instead set out to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops.
If this is true, that Obama actually said that, then I am totally disappointed in him. That sounds like a real egoist and someone who needs to boost himself, why does he need to boost himself? Is he grasping for straws? The Presidential Campaign has been over a long time ago, time for him to buckle down and take responsibility. His speech about Afghanistan was very poorly received. By mucking Bush he is definitely not going to fix it or get sympathy for it.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Don't believe the propaganda about the "delay". Bush was requested by the Gen. David McKiernan to send more troops to Afghanistan in 2008 and never did it. That was the real delay.
Why did Bush not send any troops? Was it perhaps Congress who was against it? And the majority in Congress were Democrats? He did not try? You have to be joking!

handfleisch wrote:
Obama has finally answered the generals' concerns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602304_pf.html
Quote:
By late last summer, he decided to tell George W. Bush's White House what he knew it did not want to hear: He needed 30,000 more troops. He wanted to send some to the country's east to bolster other U.S. forces, and some to the south to assist overwhelmed British and Canadian units in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

The Bush administration opted not to act on McKiernan's request and instead set out to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops.
If this is true, that Obama actually said that, then I am totally disappointed in him. That sounds like a real egoist and someone who needs to boost himself, why does he need to boost himself? Is he grasping for straws? The Presidential Campaign has been over a long time ago, time for him to buckle down and take responsibility. His speech about Afghanistan was very poorly received. By mucking Bush he is definitely not going to fix it or get sympathy for it.


What are you talking about? My post doesn't mention anything Obama said at all. Go back and reread, and maybe click on the link, so you know what you're talking about. The "he" in the quote is a US general McKiernan. Are you "totally disappointed" that a US general said to Bush that he need more troops?

You think Bush refused to send troops to Afghanistan because of Democrats? Are you joking?

Both parts of your entire post are nonsensical. Feel free to reread, and edit it, and I will delete this reply.
Related topics
Frankfurt Motor Show, 2005
Second language in first year of primary school?
Mod Projects lots of info
How many male and female in here?
Whats the best domain? Please help!!
Domain is so cheap!
Apparently inexpensive domain names (for first year)
Philosophy Essays & Philosophy Texts
Harry Potter 5 (own written version)
Toxic coal ash piling up in ponds in 32 states
Obama's First 100 days - a start on Gitmo BUT not enough
Obama's first 6 months, a list of accomplishments
Obama down in polls
Adri's New Year Resolution
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.