Yeah, because that never happened before 2009.
In what way has President Obama encouraged this?
(This outta be good…:rolleyes:)
Even though he was late to the table on SSM, he probably will be remembered as the president who ushered in an era of gay rights. Gays in the military and SSM are actually pretty big civil rights issues, historically.
But he’ll probably be remembered for something that hasn’t happened yet-- like Iran success/failure on nukes; success/failure on stamping out ISIL; whether Afghanistan becomes stable or gets overrun again by the Taliban.
I seriously doubt one less pipeline will mean jack as a legacy, despite it being a bit of a political hoo ha for a year or two.
Clearly all of this is a matter of personal opinion and conjecture, but stewardship of the US economy through the Great Recession, passage of the ACA, advances on gay rights, moving forward the agenda on climate change and immigration, and the openings to Cuba and Iran [pending success] are significant achievements that will make Obama more consequential than Carter and Bush Sr.; and none of the aforementioned deserve to be placed in the same sorry league as Ford.
(Carter deserves credit for the Camp David accords, although his legacy will always be marred by mismanaging the relationship with post-revolutionary Iran and bad luck on the economy. Bush Sr. was mostly a caretaker, status-quo president who wisely managed not to antagonize the Soviet Union after its collapse, and led some relatively successful foreign interventions (by post-Cold War standards).)
Obama’s historical ranking will no doubt be cemented in the top half of presidents for years to come, and probably deserves to be in the top 15. Somewhere in Kennedy/Johnson/Reagan territory. Sorry, Republicans.
An open question for me is how the legacy of leaving Iraq will come to be viewed by historians. It is very easy to argue that by leaving Iraq we invited the rise of ISIS. (I have problems with that argument, namely: 1. Maybe, far from preventing the rise of ISIS, remaining in Iraq would have hastened it; 2. Maybe the rise of ISIS is a fair price to pay for getting to leave Iraq, where we have no vital national interest.) But if history decides that the rise of ISIS was an intolerable calamity, and that pulling out of Iraq was a contributing factor, that would mar Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
It matters, it does. If the oil in the Canadian tar sands is extracted-shipped-and-burnt only at a rate trains and trucks can handle, it buys us some little extra time to get a handle on global warming.
That is why Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before he had actually done anything in office. It was really an award to the American people just for rejecting the Pubs – and we deserved it just for that.
It was an empty gesture. That oil is not really competitive on the world market right now, so the pipeline might not have been built even with his approval. Revisit in a few years when oil prices are high again.
Then why were so many so eager to get it built?
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/crude-oil/all/
Look at a 10 yr oil price chart. It was proposed right around the first price collapse. At the time it looked worth it but now it doesn’t. Some kept pushing it just to disagree with Obama and some people would have made some money off it’s construction even if it wasn’t a great idea. It’s not train capacity that’s slowing oil sands expansion.
His economic & fiscal legacy may not be known for quite some time. Im of the opinion that running a 3% deficit during the good times will prove problematic in the longer term. However, that’s all to be decided by future events.
I agree that the legacy of the Bush tax cuts will be problematic in the longer term.
Care to explain how Putin was “provoked” into going to Ukraine? Many Ukrainians want their nation to be integrated into Europe and protested after their stooge president pulled out of talks with the EU. Heck the stooge was impeached by parliament which his party was the majority.
How Putin provoked? What right does Russia have to dictate Ukraine’s future? I can’t let this slide, I want an answer. How was Putin “provoked” and more importantly how did Obama take part in this “provocation”?
Last I saw Obama has been hands off with Ukraine. I don’t understand this mentality that Putin is correct and that the evil West is always provoking him and poor, gentle Russia . It can’t be that he does not want to see former fellow USSR nations join NATO and EU?
I’m waiting for an answer. He is just as provoked as Iraq provoked the U.S or OJ Simpson was provoked into murdering his ex wife and that guy .
LMAO!! Putin is a creep, the OJ of international stage.
ISIS was borne out of Syria, so even without Iraq they would have emerged due to the conflict in Syria.
Thanks for that, but we are in a thread about Obama’s legacy .
Everyone remembers the bombing of Hiroshima, but we do not much remember Truman as the president who dropped the A-bomb. We remember him more for the Fair Deal, integrating the armed forces, starting the Cold War, fighting the Korean War, and “Dewey Beats Truman.”
Not likely – it’s not likely the whole Arab Spring happens without the destabilizing effect of the Iraq War.
Partially yes, expansion of NATO was provocation. Encouraging a coup, please don’t tell me the Ukraine leader was impeached*, because he changed his mind about trade agreements was provocation. I don’t think that gave Putin a right to invade or arm separatists but let’s not whitewash the lead up.
*the parliament had a vote, after a mob chased him and his allies out of the country, to remove him. There is an impeachment process and it wasn’t followed.
Historic, I suppose. Ukraine was Russian territory for centuries before Lenin was heard of, and was the heartland of pre-Muscovite Rus. Russians probably think of it the way Americans think of the Southwest, only more so because it was theirs for far longer.
And the recent death of Chalabi had reports pointing out that one big result of the invasion was to leave guys like Chalabi (that were supported by Bush) to discriminate even more against the Sunnis in favor of the Shiites in government and other positions of power in Iraq; causing then many Iraqi forces that were commanded or full of Sunnis in many areas west of Iraq to not be so willing to defend the government that they were getting. ISIS just knocked on the door and the whole thing fell down in many cities with many soldiers leaving weapons and equipment behind.
I think Obama will have far less to be remembered by than Truman.