Neither of these agreements are “peace agreements”.
In the case of Iran, you argued that opposition to the agreement was tantamount to favoring war, did you not? Sounds like a peace agreement to me.
Not exactly, but to end this branch of the argument then fine.
If your point is “the experts always favor agreements that reduce the chance of armed hostilities”, then maybe that should tell you something. Maybe armed hostilities really are worth avoiding in almost all cases.
Your earlier point, that Obama just gave up stuff without getting anything, is complete and utter bullshit. It’s Trumpery nonsense – no basis in fact.
He will be memorable but not celebrated as a *great *president.
As the first (identifying as an) African-American president, he will be a footnote. It was a great moment in American history but just like the first of anything, it was going to happen sooner or later and it just happened to be him.
Although he did push health care reform through, it was with a sledgehammer. He seemed bound and determined to get this passed no matter what the cost–political, social, or economic. He did not build consensus across both parties, he pushed this through along party lines by a narrow margin and I think that’s the source of a lot of subsequent enmity from the GOP. They, of course, overreacted and became obnoxious obstructionists for the next 6 years.
He presided over an economic recovery but you can’t give him all the credit for that. The economy is so complex that the president cannot single-handedly make everything better or make everything worse.
He has strongly exerted executive powers to the extent of being de facto legislation. He is certainly not the first president to have done so, but with the existing tension with the Republicans in Congress (which I don’t blame him completely for) he fanned the flames rather than doing more to bring the parties together.
He has done a few other good things, but in general I don’t think he has fulfilled the hopes for change that so many voters had back in 2008.
(Disclosure: I was an Obama supporter during both his campaigns, but mostly because I couldn’t stomach the opponents. Actually, I thought McCain was pretty good until I saw his running mate.)
So… to be clear you’re saying the GOP’s near suicidal commitment to obstruction was a reaction to Obama’s heavy handedness and was not present previous to his tackling heath care?
It was a reaction to the President and Democratic Congressional leadership’s unwillingness to allow any Republican input into the stimulus. That’s where it all started.
I think it actually started in that meeting very shortly after Obama’s election in which Republican leaders decided that their strategy would be to oppose Obama on nearly everything, even when they might otherwise have agreed or compromised, to deny him as many accomplishments or as much legitimacy as possible, in an effort to prevent him from getting a 2nd term.
You don’t get to cite insider books as valid evidence given that you won’t accept Woodward or Halperin’s accounts. That “secret meeting” was cited in a book by Robert Draper.
I will say that the scene was set for the GOP to go in that direction and Obama’s approach to getting ACA passed was a trigger, though probably not the only one. I do not mean that without ACA the Republicans would be all happy and shit. But after that is when you heard all this nonsense like “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”[sup]1[/sup] and “When elected my first job on Day 1 will be to repeal Obamacare.” (various GOP candidates)
The term of Bush 43 got liberal ire up more than I have seen in my adult lifetime. That was a very divisive time in our recent history and when Obama won the next election I think the conservatives took it as a poke in the eye. They decided they were going to punch back and for years we have been hearing this “take our country back” bullshit. I think the obstructionism grew from that. But ACA was Obama saying “I’m the president and we’re going to do what I say” which just fanned the flames. I’m not saying ACA was good or bad, and not addressing Obama’s motivations, just that the way it was passed got people pissed off. There would still be obstructionism regardless.
- McConnell in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010
You could just take Mitch McConnell’s very public word for it.
His public word said nothing about obstruction, it said that the first priority was to make OBama a one term President. Which has been the first priority of every opposition party ever.
I think the consensus at the time was that Obama tried, but the Republicans were playing politics.
The problem was that there were never any negotiations. Not only was the Republican bill never considered, there was never even an attempt to meet the Republicans halfway. The Democrats named the terms, said take it or leave it, and the Republicans left it.
In 100 years, Obama will be remembered solely as the answer to the trivia question, “Who was the first black President?”
Other than that, he won’t have much more of a legacy than Grover Cleveland.
That’s not the way I remember it. And, as we know, history is written by the victors.
How would you characterize McConnell filibustering his own bill?
Legislatures do complicated stuff all the time. Being for a bill before being against the same bill happens more often than you’d think.
The fact is, things have gotten done since Republicans took over Congress. THeir record on spending especially has been sterling. Obama likes to take credit for it, but it’s hard to take credit for things while you’re attacking them. Doesn’t have Clinton’s political skills apparently.
I’m surprised that you are still able to stand upright with all of the contortions you must go through to see the Republicans as the responsible ones. The Republicans have opposed Obama at every step of the way, and it’s disingenuous at best for you to pretend that they are the victims, getting attacked by that mean guy that the country actually sent to Washington to get shit done.
In the near term all the tomes written about him will be by his sycophants and all will be of Obama the Merciful variety.
In 20 years or so once more serious historians get to write on him his stock will drop considerable.
I have not tried to claim that the Republicans have been responsible. Only that the Democrats encouraged this stance with their winner take all attitude towards the 2008 elections. All they said for two years was how “We won, the Republicans drove us into the ditch and we should not take advice from the ones who drove us into the ditch”. As valid as that argument is, it’s not very magnanimous and they reaped what they sowed as a result.