# Bill Maher on Obama **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2009, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822 "2009-06-15T12:47:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/41 "2009-06-15T20:41:37Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Agreed. Obama really isn’t using the certificates of legitimacy (eg, popularity within his own party and the country as a whole) he has to the fullest. He’s had some bold moves (like appearing on Al Jazeera for his first interview), but most of them having been PR-related–not really \*doing \*anything. Of course, I didn’t expect him to get tough on the banks (even during the election, no major candidate dared to suggest that they might be culpable), but I did expect the moderate changes he promised, like a compromise on healthcare reform (with a public option) and returning to due process w/r/t prosecution of terrorism suspects. > > I think that his popularity may prove to be a double-edged sword. Left-wingers may be unwilling to criticize him lest they give the right amunition, but in the meantime real crises are not being dealt with adequately. > > But I’m not sure it’s entirely Obama’s fault. By appealing to both the liberals and conservatives in trying to build a consensus, Obama has positioned himself as the center. It’s up to the vocal liberals to push the center to where it needs to be; otherwise, the right will succeed in maintaining the status quo. Correction: It wasn’t [Al-Jazeera](http://english.aljazeera.net/), it was[Al-Arabiya](http://www.alarabiya.net/english/). ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/42 "2009-06-15T21:02:55Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Those who are saying “it takes time” and “Obame can’t fix everything is six months” are missing the point. The problem is not that Obama hasn’t done enough things in his first six months as President. The problem is that he has done the wrong things. Specifically, he has: > > - Allowed all the criminals of the Bush administration to escape without prosecuting a single one of them. > > - Taken a stance on federal spying and wiretapping even worse than that of Bush. > > - Refused to clearly make all torture illegal. > > - Increased military spending. > > - Sent more troops to Afghanistan. > > - Handed out tens of billions of dollars to many of the corporations responsible for the current economic problems. > The only major legislation that he fought for against the wishes of the Republicans was the stimulus package. Obama is not an empty suit. He’s a suit filled with a Republican, for the most part. It’s interesting to juxtapose your post with that of **gravitycrash** above. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/43 "2009-06-15T22:04:30Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > It’s what his stances are and how hard he pushes for them. For example, his public/private healthcare plan should have been a fair compromise for conservatives. There should not have been a point when other (conservative) Dems could threaten to veto it. As a popular president, he has a lot of sway over the direction his party takes. The same goes for the stimulus–there was no reason to compromise with the Republicans to put more tax cuts in it. > > If Obama opposes Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, he should just give Netanyahu an ultimatum–it’s Israel, after all, who needs U.S. funding, not the other way around. > > The point is that Obama is not being aggressive enough in pursuing the policies he advocated. So I think Maher’s basically right–Obama shouldn’t ignore everybody, but he shouldn’t engage in too much conciliation either. I’m always amazed by statements like these. You really don’t understand that compromise isn’t just something weak people do when they can’t overpower their opposition? It really does almost always lead to better results. Ultimatums are not something to be thrown around whenever you have the power to back it up. What Israel does is Israel’s business. The POTUS is obliged to give them his honest opinion on their policies, but beyond there’s no reason to start pushing them around just because he can. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/44 "2009-06-15T22:22:51Z")
Mike Huckabee said something fairly insightful that I’ve been using to reassure my right-wing friends and clients: “Obama is more likely to disappoint his friends on the left than enrage his enemies on the right.” I worked for the Obama campaign and worked to try to defeat Saxby Chambliss to give Obama 60. I have great hope that he will accomplish everything he promised still. But he needs folks on the left to pull him along. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/45 "2009-06-15T22:55:44Z")
He hasn’t been in office even a year - has it been even half a year? There are things I want to see him do, but I’ll be patient for a while yet. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/46 "2009-06-15T23:08:48Z")
> [@Khadaji](#): > > He hasn’t been in office even a year - has it been even half a year? There are things I want to see him do, but I’ll be patient for a while yet. Yeah, I figure I’ll wait to start bitching until about year 2. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/47 "2009-06-16T00:12:45Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > I’m always amazed by statements like these. > You really don’t understand that compromise isn’t just something weak people do when they can’t overpower their opposition? It really does almost always lead to better results. Except when it doesn’t. For instance, it would not be _better_ to compromise with the pro-torture faction and permit waterboarding without a plastic bag. And, to take up the healthcare example, a single payer system would be best. The public-private plan should be the transitional compromise, not the starting point for negotiations. So, if Obama starts bargaining away a public option, there really isn’t much left. > [@](#): > > Ultimatums are not something to be thrown around whenever you have the power to back it up. What Israel does is Israel’s business. The POTUS is obliged to give them his honest opinion on their policies, but beyond there’s no reason to start pushing them around just because he can. I’m not saying Obama should be tossing ultimatums around like confetti. But, in certain cases, they make a lot of sense. What Israel does _would be_ Israel’s business if it didn’t receive $3 billion in aid every year. Even putting aside the human rights issues and just looking at it from a financial perspective–you wouldn’t keep paying someone’s college tuition if they keep failing all their classes. Yes, there are times when you need to compromise. But you don’t do it when you’re the one holding all the cards. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/48 "2009-06-16T00:26:06Z")
Obama was elected by liberals but he still represents all Americans. He should at least consult conservatives and attempt to compromise if possible. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/49 "2009-06-16T00:50:56Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Except when it doesn’t. For instance, it would not be _better_ to compromise with the pro-torture faction and permit waterboarding without a plastic bag. So if I decided that all imprisonment was torture, and I had the power to ban the entire practice… it’s automatically better for me to do so, no matter what anyone else thinks? > [@](#): > > I’m not saying Obama should be tossing ultimatums around like confetti. But, in certain cases, they make a lot of sense. What Israel does _would be_ Israel’s business if it didn’t receive $3 billion in aid every year. Did the possibility not occur to you to continue providing aid, but on the condition that there is some verification that this aid is not contributing to further Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories? Israel get’s aid, without being ruled by a foreign power, and the US gets to avoid funding practices which they disagree with. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But without an omniscient judge to decide who is right and who is wrong, it’s usually your best choice. > [@](#): > > Yes, there are times when you need to compromise. But you don’t do it when you’re the one holding all the cards. Which cards you are holding has absolutely no significance to when you should or shouldn’t compromise. Unless one of those cards is omniscience. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/50 "2009-06-16T01:09:53Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Except when it doesn’t. For instance, it would not be _better_ to compromise with the pro-torture faction and permit waterboarding without a plastic bag. Wait… does Obama permit waterboarding? Or are you just making up stuff? ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/51 "2009-06-16T03:03:17Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > So if I decided that all imprisonment was torture, and I had the power to ban the entire practice… it’s automatically better for me to do so, no matter what anyone else thinks? Well, it’s not. If actual torture was taking place, then that would be the appropriate course of action. > [@](#): > > Which cards you are holding has absolutely no significance to when you should or shouldn’t compromise. Unless one of those cards is omniscience. I see what you’re saying, but I think we’re approaching this from two different directions. I’m assuming that a certain position (whatever it may be) is the correct one. That is, having heard the other side’s arguments, you find that there is no merit to their opposition. So, the question is not a matter of determining what is the best policy, but rather what is the best way to implement that policy. You seem to be arguing that compromise is important in arriving at the best _policy_. I’m saying that, when you have heard all the arguments and evaluated them, you should use compromise as a _strategy_ when you don’t have enough power to enact it on your own. (Of course, this presumes you are confident that you have a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.) > [@Ravenman](#): > > Wait… does Obama permit waterboarding? Or are you just making up stuff? No, that was purely a hypothetical. However, a real example could be Obama’s refusal to prosecute the agents involved and limiting any investigation to the higher-ups. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/52 "2009-06-16T03:25:54Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > No, that was purely a hypothetical. However, a real example could be Obama’s refusal to prosecute the agents involved and limiting any investigation to the higher-ups. How is that a compromise? He never said he would prosecute for such things. He said in April 2008: > [@](#): > > What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve. > > So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment – I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General – having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now – are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important-- one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. I’m not seeing this as an example of where Obama wanted something, but had to give something up in order to get it. It sounds like he staked out a pragmatic position on the issue long ago. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/53 "2009-06-16T04:00:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How is that a compromise? He never said he would prosecute for such things. He said in April 2008: > > I’m not seeing this as an example of where Obama wanted something, but had to give something up in order to get it. It sounds like he staked out a pragmatic position on the issue long ago. Depends on how you look at it: > [@](#): > > Jan 16, 2009: > > The 57-year-old former prosecutor who was deputy attorney general from 1997 to 2001 pledged to shut down the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in part by sending detainees to trial in the United States, and restore the Justice Department’s reputation of independence from political interference. > > [USA TODAY - Breaking News and Latest News Today](http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=tennessean&sParam=33873480.story) > [@](#): > > May 6, 2009: > > On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, appearing on ABC’s This Week, underscored that President Obama had promised that CIA agents who acted in reliance on Bush-era Justice Department memoranda approving since-repudiated torture techniques would not face criminal investigation or prosecution. Then he went one step further, stating “those who devised the policy, he believes that they were—should not be prosecuted either.” A few hours later, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated Emanuel’s remarks as official policy. But during the course of the day on Tuesday the White House appeared suddenly to shift gears. President Obama, responding to a reporter’s question, declared that he was not prejudging a possible criminal investigation or prosecution of “those who formulated those legal decisions” behind the interrogation methods. What happened? > > Members of the White House press corps struggled to explain the shift, many of them suggesting that Obama was pandering to his political base. But the winds of change blew in from an address just down Pennsylvania Avenue. The Daily Beast has learned that senior Justice Department lawyers were “incensed” at the Emanuel and Gibbs statements, as one put it—not because they disagreed with Obama’s apparent opposition to an investigation and prosecution, but because the statements violated well-established rules separating political figures in the White House from decisions about active criminal cases. The statements were viewed as a frontal assault on the autonomy and independence of the criminal-justice system. “Emanuel got far ahead of the process and described it in a way that clearly suggested that political judgment was driving the entire process,” one senior Justice official told me. “It was depressing and amateurish.” > > [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-22/obamas-about-face-on-prosecution/](http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-22/obamas-about-face-on-prosecution/) Obama may have been right in not “prejudging” the DOJ’s investigations of the architects of the practice, but he still believes that CIA agents should not be prosecuted. That is not for him to decide. The quote you have provided says nothing about interfering with DOJ operations. Though I suppose you could interpret the “we” in > [@](#): > > we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity in any number of ways. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/54 "2009-06-16T04:01:01Z")
**sleeping** you’re right that we’re approaching this from two different directions. I just disagree with the direction you are approaching from. You’re assuming that a certain position (whatever it may be) is the correct one. That’s what I disagree with. If you’ve heard the other side’s arguments, and found that there is no merit to their opposition …and they’ve heard your side’s arguments and found that there is no merit to your policy …What then? You seem to think there is a point at which disagreements can simply be put to rest with “I am right. You are wrong.” If that were the case, you could move on to deciding how to best implement your policy under the blanket assumption that you are definitely right… and you would be justified in doing just about anything to enact your chosen policy. Really. If you are definitely right, and they are definitely wrong you’re justified in doing _just about anything_ to get your way. I am only saying that this would require omniscience, to know for certain that you are right. A rational person must always accept the possibility that they are wrong (even when they cannot see how they could be, and are convinced their opposition has no merit) Because of this, you can never simply move on from deciding the best policy to enacting it. Compromising with those who disagree remains a necessary part of enacting good policy even when you have the option of overpowering opposition. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/55 "2009-06-16T04:31:52Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > If that were the case, you could move on to deciding how to best implement your policy under the blanket assumption that you are definitely right… and you would be justified in doing just about anything to enact your chosen policy. Really. If you are definitely right, and they are definitely wrong you’re justified in doing _just about anything_ to get your way. Not anything. In general, it should be proportional to the importance of what you’re trying to achieve. And, so far as the present situation is concerned, there is no need to do anything illegal. > [@](#): > > I am only saying that this would require omniscience, to know for certain that you are right. A rational person must always accept the possibility that they are wrong (even when they cannot see how they could be, and are convinced their opposition has no merit) Because of this, you can never simply move on from deciding the best policy to enacting it. Compromising with those who disagree remains a necessary part of enacting good policy even when you have the option of overpowering opposition. I disagree. There are some issues where I can see how someone would take an opposing view. But there are also some where I don’t feel there is a legitimate counterargument. I don’t think any of us live our lives with doubt on every issue, receptive to counterarguments we’ve already heard (and dismissed) before. Note that I’m \*not \* suggesting that Obama seize dictatorial power in order to pass some agenda. I’m saying that he should be more aggressive, while nevertheless operating within the framework of our representative democracy. What’s more, if the majority of the population supports his agenda, and a majority of senators and representatives are on board, it might actually be anti-democratic for him to compromise in pursuit of some sort of consensus or super-majority. Especially if it significantly waters down the original proposal. I suppose you might argue that Obama is not merely adjusting to the way the wind blows, but has actually changed his mind about certain issues. In that case, it really would be about policy rather than strategy. But I think it’s just the pressure groups. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/56 "2009-06-17T09:38:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* ITR champion\*\*: The problem is not that Obama hasn’t done enough things in his first six months as President. This is June 17. The President will not have been in office for six months until July 20. He hasn’t even been in office five months yet. > [@](#): > > **ITR champion** : Allowed all the criminals of the Bush administration to escape without prosecuting a single one of them. Where have they escaped to? Why was Obama in charge of prosecuting them? ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/57 "2009-06-18T19:40:11Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Not anything. In general, it should be proportional to the importance of what you’re trying to achieve. Well I was very careful to say ‘_almost_ anything’. 🙂 While I won’t disagree that it should be proportional to the importance of what you’re trying to achieve, I see no reason to compartmentalize the importance of one goal from another in this case. The sum total of all the goals one could achieve “if only nobody could stop me” adds up to justify more than it would seem from looking at each hypothetical achievement on its own. > [@](#): > > I disagree. There are some issues where I can see how someone would take an opposing view. But there are also some where I don’t feel there is a legitimate counterargument. There’s nothing unusual about _feeling_ that there’s no legitimate counterargument. But that’s an entirely different matter than _knowing_ there isn’t one. I really don’t see how anyone can disagree with that. > [@](#): > > I don’t think any of us live our lives with doubt on every issue, receptive to counterarguments we’ve already heard (and dismissed) before. I wouldn’t say that I have doubt on every issue, at least not from the common definition of doubt as something you feel. It’s just a fact that the human mind is fallible and anyone can be wrong even when they are sure they’re right. Even if you don’t feel it, you have to recognize this fact intellectually. Also, I don’t think you have to be receptive to arguments you’ve already dismissed to compromise with those who disagree with you. Think of it more along the lines of hedging your bets. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that he should be more aggressive, while nevertheless operating within the framework of our representative democracy. Well, that’s just a matter of degrees, so I don’t really disagree with that. What I have a problem with is the idea that you should act as if you are definitely right just because it _seems like_ you are. > [@](#): > > What’s more, if the majority of the population supports his agenda, and a majority of senators and representatives are on board, it might actually be anti-democratic for him to compromise in pursuit of some sort of consensus or super-majority. I see no reason why it would be anti-democratic. He was elected to do what he thinks is best for everybody (including those who didn’t vote for him) If he thinks it’s best to ignore the reality of human fallibility and pretend he is omniscient, then that’s his choice. But if he has the sense to take a more measured approach, that’s also his choice. Neither choice would be anti-democratic. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/58 "2009-06-18T20:33:56Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Obama was elected by liberals but he still represents all Americans. He should at least consult conservatives and attempt to compromise if possible. Oh, see, the thing is I voted for Democrats, as did _a lot_ of other Americans–a majority, in fact–_ **because I want to be governed by Democrats, not Republicans.** _ ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/59 "2009-06-18T21:13:51Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Oh, see, the thing is I voted for Democrats, as did _a lot_ of other Americans–a majority, in fact–_ **because I want to be governed by Democrats, not Republicans.** _ Totally understandable but Obama still represents all Americans. One of the (many) short-comings of Bush (IMO; I’m a moderate Republican) was that he made little effort to represent all Americans and I believe he’ll go down as one of the worst presidents in the last 100 years. It looks like Obama, to his credit, understands this. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822/60 "2009-06-19T02:09:15Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Totally understandable but Obama still represents all Americans. One of the (many) short-comings of Bush (IMO; I’m a moderate Republican) was that he made little effort to represent all Americans and I believe he’ll go down as one of the worst presidents in the last 100 years. It looks like Obama, to his credit, understands this. Moderates, whose rank and file are hard to pin down because they change from year to year, would have no problem with this. To Republicans, you make a lot of sense because they got annihilated in the past two election cycles. To Democrats, you sound like something they’d like to have done for couple of cycles before that when they were in the minority. Any party in the minority likes to remind the other party that minority party rights are important, until they get into the majority. The Republicans have either had doors opened for them or worked hard to open a few doors in policy and they’ve rammed through stuff that appeals to Republicans and/or Conservatives. The problem we have now is if it’s fair for the other side to do it as well. If one side is in power, that’s unfortunately how our system works and a remnant of the spoils system in action. Personally, I’d love to see Democrats get every single thing through on the big issues (Energy, Healthcare, National Security, Education), but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the best for the country. (It’s part of a crisis I’m having with regards to labor: is strong labor, which I believe in, good for my state? Probably, yes. Is if good for the country, probably no, with globalization being so rampant. Life makes some winners, but it makes a whole lot of average folks and some losers and in many ways the average folks and losers benefit, but in some pretty important ways, they lose badly.) With healthcare, as the last industrialized country to be looking at nationalized medicine as the answer, we should be in an enviable position to take the best parts of the other systems that work throughout the world. Unfortunately, because of overcompromise and the lack of desire to spend political capital, we could very well end up with the lamest and worst health care for our citizens that our money can buy, which is lamentable at best, pretty damned stupid in the middle, and borderline criminal at worst. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-maher-on-obama/499822.md?page=4)