What I have learned is not to trust the promises politicians make during election time, as presidents lie before they are elected, while they’re in office, and after they leave. Such as right now I am debating whether or not I trust his promises to the gay community on marriage equality, especially since as a gay man the topic would be an instrumental one in how I vote next election.
I answered “Only somewhat satisfied.”
I like the guy, too. But I told people over and over again who thanked Jesus for his election, “Remember, he’s still a politician.”
I agree with those who said he spent his political capital on all the wrong things. While I don’t think he can fix the economy on his own (that’s Congress’ job), he never really stood up to the Republicans.
Basically, he campaigned on the idea of change in Washington politics, and so far I’ve only seen more of the same. He’s not nearly as left-leaning as his supporters think he is or his opponents claim he is.
Can we have Bill Clinton back? Please?
I don’t think his supporters believe he’s left-leaning at all. To their utter disappointment, they know he’s not.
Turns out Obama is a politician, so there is no way I can be fully satisfied with his performance. Except when contrasted with his predecessor of course - then he appears to be one of the greats.
What makes me happy I voted for Obama is every time I see Michelle on TV. It’s nice to see someone classy representing the US.
This to me is part of the main problem. Thanks to bush 43, Obama came into office during the worst recession in 70 years. Bush started out with a government surplus, and left a huge deficit. And since Obama didn’t clear that up in his first 100 days, he’s a failure.
Americans want instant solutions to long term problems.
I give any presidential candidate I vote for a 40% success rate on promises they make on the campaign trail so using this metric,I gave him a satisfied. He could have done better but thus far the alternative does not appear viable to me.
With his election in 2008 he was given a majority in the House and a filibuster proof Senate* and look at the effing mess we got for a Health Care bill. Couldn’t keep his own coalition together. Major disappointing. He blew a chance that may not come again for another generation.
Failure to advance a progressive agenda with a friendly Congress just boggles my mind.
Gitmo. Fail.
DOMA. Fail.
[SIZE=“1”]*(ok technically it was 58 Democrats and 2 Independents but we know those Independents were on his side)[/SIZE]
In the words of Paul Westerberg, I’m so unsatisfied.
George W. Bush was a terrible president who spent money like a drunken sailor. However, Obama is an excoriable president who spends money like a crack whore.
-
Obama’s energy policy is utterly ruinous. Vetoing the Keystone pipeline was the most maliciously destructive economic act of any president in my lifetime (well, possibly Iraq/Afghanistan).
-
Obama’s healthcare policy is utterly ruinous.
-
Did I mention he spends money like a crack whore?
He had that ‘filibuster-proof Senate’ for just over four months.
A filibuster-proof majority is 60 votes, present and voting; the Dems started off 2009 with 58, then Ted Kennedy’s cancer got the better of him and he ceased being able to show up for votes around March: 57. In late April, Arlen Specter switched parties: 58. In early July, Al Franken was sworn in: 59. Teddy died in late August: still 59. His successor, Paul Kirk, was sworn in on September 25: 60 at last. Four months later, Scott Brown won the special election for that seat: 59 again.
Just wanted to clear up that bit of history.
You may possibly be confusing ‘friendly’ with ‘progressive’. The Dem side of the Senate has rarely marched in lockstep. There are many Dems who disagree with the more liberal notions and would not vote for progressive measures, particularly the Blue Dog Coalition in the House.
A couple of minor nitpicks with regards to point 1:
The correct name is the Keystone XL and I don’t believe it was vetoed but rather a decision is delayed until 2013.
In any event I would think that the section that TransCanada is really after is the now approved Gulf Coast and Houston Lateral projects which is a much needed - for TransCanada at least - extension of the existing Keystone Pipeline.
Excellent on foreign policy and a few good domestic policies (such as the current Executive Order on illegal immigrants) but bad regarding the economy.
How so? The trends have been positive for the past three years, and most economists don’t believe a full recovery is possible for at least another 5-7 years, particularly given the intransigence of the Republican legislators, their blind adherence to tried-and-failed economic policies of the past, their kowtowing to the Tea Party radicals, their refusal to provide meaningful oversight of Wall Street, and their hatred of Obama. If the Euro collapses, nothing anybody does will make a bit of difference, and right now that’s what’s driving the markets.
The recovery has been highly mediocre to say the least. In addition the simple fact is that with an aging population, entitlement reform (and massive cuts in military spending too) are needeed. Even if Obama’s proposed tax increases were accepted, it would be little more than a stopgap measure without spending cuts.
I think he caved in on healthcare - way to quick to drop the public option. He’s failed to close Guantanamo and aspects of his fight against terrorism have been, shall we say, ‘extralegal.’ Also I wish he’d be a little more (i.e. at all) favorable toward gun control. So I’m only partially satisfied, because he’s been way to willing to let the Republicans control the debate on so many issues.
He’s way, way better than the alternative though.
I vote no. Overall, the economy is still a mess and I haven’t heard of a cohesive plan to fix it. More specifically things I like (focusing on actions at running the country rather than positions on issues:
Assassinating Bin Ladin. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword, or in the case a M4 carbine.
Obamacare, even thought it’s going to have serious unintended consequences
(Eventually) winding down our military adventures overseas.
Signing the Stillwater Bridge bill. After 50 years it looks like the thing is finally going to get built.
Things I don’t like
Destroying a huge amount of wealth with Cash 4 Clunkers. Ever heard of the broken window fallacy. But don’t mention it to him, the next plan will be to actually throw bricks through windows to give business to glazers to install more energy effiency
Not allowing importation of the M1 Garands and carbines from Korea, or relaxing the restriction on importing SVT-40 rifles from Russia.
What is the reason for not allowing US rifles back into the USA?
Are they Korea knock offs?
Only somewhat satisfied.
I heartily approve of ending the Iraq war, winding down the Afghanistan War (though it could have been done much faster), assistance to renewable energy companies (minor though it is), and determination to have health care for all (though the final bill was highly flawed).
I disapprove of maintaining a huge and mostly useless military-industrial complex, continuing corporate subisides in agriculture and who knows how many other areas, major civil rights violations (too many to count at this point), and mandating religious institutions to pay for birth control.
I also dislike the lack of serious action to combat global warming, but realize that Congress would never pass anything even if Obama cared about the issue.
What consequences do you predict?
The way he came out in favor of gay marriage a few hours after Biden blurted out his support was kindof disappointing. I am glad we have a president who openly supports equal rights for gays, but Obama supported gay marriage back in 1996, back before it was popular. Then he just hid from opinions he supported 16 years ago until he was forced to admit where he stands. I can understand there are politics in his opinion. The democrats have to juggle the progressive base (which is socially liberal) with minorities and white union workers, who tend to be more socially conservative. Even FDR didn’t stand up to lynching because he knew it would alienate southern democrats. So you go to work with the politics you are given. But Obama doesn’t lead. The GOP leads. The GOP says ‘we support XYZ, and could care less that 80% of the public are against it’ and they get elected anyway. The stuff the democrats tend to be pussies about (universal health care, marijuana legalization, gay marriage, humanitarian aid) all poll far better than what the GOP brazenly supports (supply side tax cuts, citizens united, extending the Iraq war, etc). Bill Clinton once made a remark about how the American public would elect someone willing to drive into a wall just so long as the person was unwavering in their commitment. That describes the GOP pretty well.
Health care had some disappointments. The public option could’ve been used as a brokered position. Start with single payer and barter down to a public option. Instead the dems started from a weak, centrist position and negotiated to an even weaker position. It is good we got a health reform law, but (like social security) it needs to be reformed and expanded over time.