That’s just a weird way to measure it. The 2008 wins were huge. 2012 was very modest. 2010 and 2014 were huge for the Republicans and wiped out the 2012 Democratic comeback several times over. The fact is, the Democratic Party is at its weakest ebb in the postwar era outside the White House. He did that.
I do agree that he’s responsible in large part for what happens in 2016, especially since Clinton has intelligently tied herself to his record. We talked about that before, how stupid it is to try to run from your own party leader.
Which is the same thing Democrats wanted to do with Bush. Except that was impossible in Bush’s first term due to his relative popularity and skill in getting what he wanted. In Bush’s 2nd term though, the Democrats handed his head to him.
Did Harry Reid state that his number one priority was to make sure Bush lost in 2004? Did any legislation pass Congress with zero Democratic votes? Did Democrats meet in secret on Jan 20, 2001 and vow to not cooperate with Bush on any issue, no matter what?
The sea change is going against long-held policy and practice – nothing had changed in Cuba for decades. Changing that was a big deal and took boldness. Iran had been seen as wholly irrational and untrustworthy terrorist enemy for decades – changing that to viewing them as a partially irrational, partially untrustworthy enemy who we might actually be able to make deals with was also a big deal and took boldness.
These were big direction changes for those two countries. If they’re successful, then future Presidents might look to re-evaluate our relationships with other countries we’ve counted as long-time adversaries. And if this occurs, then Obama will rightly be considered the architect of this very different approach.
Yes, it’s a sea change that other Presidents might have done at times in the past, but so were big shifts and accomplishments like Reagan/Nixon/TR. Not guaranteed, but possible, if Obama’s policies are successful and emulated.
He was partially responsible for the big losses, yes, but he was also partially responsible for the big wins. “Weakest ebb” is extreme hyperbole, it seems to me, when Republicans’ grasp on the Senate and governorships is so tenuous. A big win in '16 could reverse this almost entirely… if the Democrats win back the Senate, win the WH, and make substantial gains in the House and in state races, which is likely to occur, then will you reverse yourself and state “Obama is responsible for one of the strongest Democratic party positions in decades”?
Hell, ensuring Democratic control of the White House for at least 12 years, if they win in '16, is at least as significant a positive in the historical contest (starting the longest Democratic run on the WH since Truman!) as the big losses in the House and Senate.
I understand that my bias is probably involved in my analysis here. Do you understand that your extreme personal dislike of Obama may also be involved in your analysis?
Once again you’re blaming Obama for the extreme partisanship of the Republicans, pretending that the modern party is still reasonable. It is not.
It should tell you something, which is that Collins was legitimately afraid of a Tea Party primary challenge. She had to join the obstruction machine or be ousted - the current state of the party is such that any concession by a GOP member of Congress that Obama isn’t the actual Antichrist is seen as treason. Look at Chris Christie - being seen to work with Obama after his state got flattened by a major hurricane brought him no end of scorn from the right. This is your party now. Collins had no choice.
Scott Brown’s election told us that Martha Coakley ran one of the worst campaigns this country has seen, overtly pissing off the people she wanted to vote for her in several different ways. The fact that Brown was promptly booted out at the next election when a more competent challenger came along supports that view.
Oh, and since we mentioned Collins, you might also recall her fellow Senator from Maine Olympia Snowe - and why she left the Senate.
Try looking at the forest instead of just a few trees. Obama has turned America from The Bully Of The World that everyone hated into a diplomatic power that is respected by other world leaders. A peacefully negotiated deal with [del]the devil himself[/del] Iran, that hinged on an unlikely alliance with both Russia and China, and that was accomplished without a shot or a single life being put in jeopardy, was unimaginable before it happened. Obama’s lead in the West’s sanctioning of Russia–all the while keeping it as an ally in the Iran deal–arguably prevented Putin from going full invasion and takeover in Ukraine. I shudder to think how a President Cruz would fuck up such a delicate situation beyond all repair in one reactionary moment.
The lasting success of Obama’s foreign policy will depend on the following administrations, but he has shown not only that peaceful diplomacy, negotiation and sanctions work, but can produce better results than the caveman military option. It deserves to be remembered by history, and probably will be.
Who started a wholesale invasion of an innocent country under false pretenses? Not doing that must count for something, don’t you think? Or don’t you think at all before posting?
Interesting that you brought up thinking, considering that your argument is that Obama created a “sea change” simply by reversing the last administration’s policies. “Sea change” is a phrase that involves changing something longstanding.
I can never follow your arguments…in the space of just a few posts you decry obamas lack of compromise and consultation while at the same time blame him fir a lack of backbone and not achieving his agenda.
There is no cosistency to what ylu say. As though each individual post is a fully encapsulated philosophy all of its own
I don’t see either of these examples as boldness.
The Iran deal was simply surrender to global economics. Other countries were going to trade with Iran whether we wanted them to or not. So Obama decided to deny reality, and declare that Iran is now a fully rational and totally trustworthy country.So we can encourage them to go nuclear, with no inspections necessary. But golly gee whiz, we’re gonna make them sign a meaningless and unenforceable promise to wait for 5 years.
Yep, that’s boldness.
And Cuba isn’t really a major issue. It’s a totally irrelevant 3rd world country. True, they once scared the hell out of the entire planet for a few weeks in 1962. But since then, Cuba has had zero impact on anything. Opening a little trade with them is nice, but not a bold move.
Now, maybe, in the future, a miracle will occur and America’s health care system weill become rational–then Obama will be respected for having started the process.
A hundred years from now, Obama will be remembered for having been black,and being a decent but not particularly memorable president.
The crack about you not thinking was cheap and I regret it. It was me who wasn’t thinking there. My apologies for that. But for pete’s sake, where have you been for the last 100 years or so? That’s about how long the United States has been casually throwing its military weight around and making enemies throughout the world. Ask Smedley Butler, or all the jihadists who existed before the last administration, or likewise, all the Europeans, Asians, Central Americans and Africans I met in my travelling days who universally hated America with a passion. Turning that around in seven short years has been nothing short of masterful. It will be up to succeeding administrations to make it stick, but that’s out of Obama’s hands. What he’s done for foreign policy in his time in office fits every definition of “sea change”.
The US isn’t throwing it’s weight around now? We’re bombing seven countries. As I pointed out, Obama actually got more aggressive than Bush when it comes to the use of air power. Bush didn’t use it in allies that objected. Obama has basically told Pakistan to get over it, which is a pretty big deal. Heck, we even did a land operation on their territory. With good reason, of course, but Obama is actually throwing America’s weight around. A lot.
Now Obama doesn’t get as much hate for it because he’s good at soothing world opinion. He’s not that sneering cowboy Bush. Hillary Clinton and future Democrats will not enjoy that same ability to use style to overcome the substance of our aggressive foreign policy. Clinton’s got that Thatcher Iron Lady rep. Ugly America is back when she’s President. Ugly America is back if a Republican is President. That’s because it never left, it just got a prettier, more soothing, apologetic face for 8 years.
It’s simply a correction of a fact he got wrong. No, I don’t believe it’s good to do one thing but have people convinced you are doing another. Clinton will probably strike a better balance if she’s elected. She won’t be the swaggering dick that Bush was, but she also won’t be blowing smoke up the world’s ass about what we’re actually doing. Her husband didn’t. He actually bombed a lot less than Obama has but got a lot more heat for it from the left and the world community. Obama gets a lot of benefit of the doubt that applies only to him and which will not benefit his successors.
Force is the only choice Obama has against an enemy that won’t negotiate, and he’s using the minimum amount of it. Force is the last option, not the first, remember? He has to attack them in multiple countries because that’s where they are. They aren’t confined to a single homeland. And those countries get a lot more benefit than the U.S. does from killing terrorists. Whatever bleating you hear from Middle East leaders about it is for their own political purposes at home.
If you want to describe selective, targeted attacks as “bombing seven countries” as if Obama is trying to conquer them, go ahead. If you want to equate drone attacks with all-out invasion and business as usual, be my guest. If you’re bound and determined to ignore all that Obama has accomplished diplomatically, well, keep on truckin’. I’m not going to bang my head against a brick wall.
Isn’t this a GOOD thing and a signal of one of the talents of Obama’s leadership?
How is it “bad” that people think more positively of Obama - that he is better able to sell people of the necessity and “rightness” of his actions? That he gets greater support for negative* things.
negative in the sense that Adaher is claiming this drone campaign is wrong, unneccessary and bad
Of course it’s not the same as invasion. It’s also not a “kindler, gentler” diplomacy either. Your argument that the nations involved secretly like us bombing them just proves the point. If there was truly a sea change, they’d be able to embrace the US publicly.
You also get to the contradiction in Obama’s foreign policy by citing the necessity of bombing while observing that he’s doing as little as possible. But that’s just a politician’s “split the baby” act applied to warfare. He can’t do nothing, and he’s not willing to go very far(would hurt his image around the world, which he seems to care about), so he opts to do as little as he can get away with. This will become clearer when the next President is elected and goes for a more aggressive strategy. If said aggressive strategy works well, then Obama will be recognized as employing a political strategy rather than a warfighting strategy.
Except he hasn’t done that. Rather than there being public support for a bombing campaign in seven countries, most people just choose to not think about it. Once a REpublican is elected, of course, continuance of the policy will be highly controversial and spark massive street protests around the world.
Obama doesn’t sell his foreign policy. He just does what he wants and assumes Republicans will support it or say he should be doing more, and Democrats will shut up or talk about wealth inequality. He’s even increasing troop levels in Iraq(which were already higher than he’d led the public to believe), and he doesn’t even have to sell it. Which kinda screws his successor, because Obama hasn’t laid out a moral case for his wars. Iron Lady or GOP Cowboy are going to have a lot of trouble with public opinion as a result.