You could start by trusting the public to tell truth from lies. And what’s important from what’s not.
Nope the actual is very explicit. No political activity at all.
The trouble is many issues are too complicated or nuanced info needs to be sifted to get to the truth. It takes more than twenty seconds of headline and a couple of buzzwords to get to the truth about things.
For instance with Benghazi… “blamed the video” are the buzzwords that are based on some fact but not the entire truth about what people said.
The Demonstrations in Cairo were blamed on the movie and the demonstration the CIA first thought took place in Benghazi were blamed on the movie, but the attack itself was blamed on heavily armed extremists that was never ‘blamed on the movie’.
But blaming the movie was a good buzz word summation of the overall attack conservatives want to hang around Obama’s neck such as Obama’s sympathy with Muslim anger and being weak on the real problem of fighting terrorists.
Of course that narrative won’t stand on its own so the myth of ‘blame the video’ has evolved to a point where millions take it as gospel and truth.
Actually, the law says that an organization can’t be “primarily political”. So if it has any function that is not political, then it qualifies.
Now if the administration wanted to change the way these organizations are classified, toughen up the standards, they could have done that, but they didn’t. Instead, the counsel’s office ordered greater scrutiny of applications from Tea Party groups.
That’s not a workplace screwup, although it turns out that the White House probably had no involvement. Thus, not an Obama scandal, but more a case of typical government wrongdoing for which many people got fired.
“Primarily” is not the same thing as “entirely”. A group that has any nonpolitical function at all is not entirely political, but it might still be primarily political.
I don’t think that’s the case. I think they have to demonstrate that < 50% of their activity is political.
Yet in practice, it is rare for groups to be turned down. The airwaves have been full of ads from primarily political groups with tax exempt status for years.
An attempt to tighten up standards directed primarily at the right is illegal, which is why the FBI is investigating.
Defend your thesis - that Obama’s popularity is being undermined by scandal-mongers - against the historical reality that two-term presidents typically decline in popularity in their second term. Why should Obama be immune to this effect? What has he done that should cause his popularity to stay the same or rise?
Funny thing is, the Obama administration would LOOOOOVE to have the approval rating in the OP at this point. Please don’t tell us that the recent drop in Obama’s approval rating is anything more than a reaction to the bungled rollout of the ACA.
Plus he took a hit for the shutdown, although nothing as bad as the hit Congress (and particularly the Republicans in the House) took.
I do think his rating is heavily tied to the ACA rollout going forward, however. If the bugs get worked out and more people benefit than lose by the changes to the system, he’ll recover. If the website problems persist, it’ll be a much harder uphill struggle. Of course, the GOP have already done that calculation too and are going to do everything possible to keep things from improving.
Or something new could happen for the media to get all excited about and the public will forget about the ACA rollout and move on to the new Shiny.
Hard to forget about something that directly hits your wallet and your access to your doctor.
But that being said, if there are a lot more winners than losers and the economy continues to improve, he may leave office a successful President yet. But I don’t think that will happen unless he figures out how to do his job. He’s a victim of events, he has no ability to control the agenda like past successful President did.
A little triangulation wouldn’t hurt. Even if Republicans don’t bite, it would benefit his approval rating for him to look like the reasonable guy in the room. As much as he’s tried to make himself look like that, he’s been less successful than Bill Clinton in that regard.
Yes, but that applies in both directions.
You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true. Obama has accomplished more in the face of the worst political opposition in living memory than most others could have dreamed of. The fact that ACA was passed at all is testament to that.
He is the reasonable guy in the room, if only by dint of the fact that the other people in the room are fucking insane.
True, but WHO benefits and loses matters, since some groups are more prone to vote than others, and angry voters tend to be more motivated than satisfied voters. The 1988 Medicare Catastrophic coverage bill had more winners than losers too. But when the losers attack your car…
He had some control over the agenda when the Democrats controlled Congress. Since then, he doesn’t even control his own branch of government, much less have any influence in Congress.
Yet he fails to get that across to the public in a way that they believe. And now the public believes he’s untrustworthy:
Between crazy and dishonest, who does the public choose? And who is more likely to recover? All the Republicans have to do is stop acting crazy. What can Obama do to win trust back?
True. But threaten to take away the benefits to the winners and they get angry too…
Again, that second sentence isn’t true except in your own personal, very skewed interpretation of how the Executive Branch works.
Well, that’s what time will tell.
This may well be the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks. Is that “all” they have to do? You make it sound so…achievable. In reality, the inmates have already taken over a significant portion of the asylum and it won’t be easy to get them back into their cells. Not by 2014, probably not by 2016, and certainly not until the kneejerk reaction to every setback stops being “we weren’t conservative/ideologically pure enough! Steer hard right!”.
The winners are overwhelmingly Democrats. Many of the losers are too(the young). Plus it’s important not to overthink this too much. If polls show a majority want repeal, it’s a pretty safe move to repeal.
The way it works, in terms of the law, is that the President is in charge of, and accountable for, the actions of the branch of government he is the head of. He himself has said this on numerous occasions.
Now I agree that the executive branch is probably too big to be accountable to the President, much less voters, but that’s a problem politicians like Barack Obama created. They can’t create an ungovernable executive branch and then disclaim all responsibility for it. Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that. He said quite clearly, “The buck stops with me”. Case closed.
Maybe you aren’t privy to the internal debates going on since the shutdown, but the Tea Party took a hit and now establishment candidates are the ones primarying the Tea Party incumbents. And a lot of people like me, who are loyal to the Tea Party side, feel some reality needs to be injected into the caucus.
And your opinion of his management of the executive branch is very, very wrong.
I’m very skeptical that the non-crazy wing of the Republican party is gaining any ground. We’ll see in the next couple of elections.
At least the non-crazy wing is trying these days. Unfortunately that just seems to stir up the crazy ones even more.
Oh yeah, he’s doing a heck of a job. Just management success after management success.
It’s not just that, not all the Tea Partiers are nuts. Some of the nuttier ones went away in 2012, others have moderated their tactics a bit. It’s pretty clear that not only did the shutdown accomplish nothing, it actually distracted from the Democrats burying themselves.
When John Boehner surrendered, rather than being booted out of office, he got a unanimous standing ovation. He tried it their way, it didn’t work, and now they understand that they have to be smarter.
We’re going to find out very early, before Feb. 7, if they’ve learned anything. Given that Democrats will probably still be in big trouble, why interrupt them while they are destroying themselves?
Somehow I imagine that the truth lies somewhere in between your two ridiculous positions (that is, that he is the worst executive manager EVAH, and the above). He’s probably doing a good job in some aspects (like foreign policy and keeping/getting us out of foreign military entaglements), and a less than good job in others (like rollout of the ACA). But you’re just way off, not surprisingly.
That’s exactly what I hope the Democrats do- why interrupt the Republican party while it’s destroying itself? 
Foreign policy is not management of the government. There are over a dozen other departments he’s responsible for besides the State Department. We already know he’s done a shitty job with HHS and Justice.