As well as not expelling them from US territory or putting them in camps. In fact, respecting their civil liberties as much as those of any religious or ethnic group. So basically, by respecting them as equal members of society that makes Obama pro-Muslim.
Did I get it right?
Just scrolled up and realized you said what I was going to say. Either he’s already a lame duck, or he’ll be one after the 2016 election. The latter is the definition I learned in civics class.
He’s been a lame duck ever since his party lost control of the House. His agenda is dead on arrival. He’s only gonna get duckier as 2016 approaches.
It’s not only that his party lost control of the House, but also that he has very low approval ratings. Politicians ignore popular Presidents of the opposite party at their peril.
Unfortunately, Google will only seem to go back to 2004:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F09b6zr%2C%20%2Fm%2F07t58%2C%20%2Fm%2F02mjmr&cmpt=q
But if you plot out the trends of “George W Bush”, “United States Senate”, and “Barack Obama”, it tentatively looks like the President is usually 2-3 times more frequently referred to than the Senate, while he is considered to be an interesting figure in the world. Bush seems to have had this all the way up to the spike before his second election. But after his election and lasting through the final four years of his presidency, President Bush was only as well-referenced as the Senate. President Obama appears to be maintaining a consistent level of interest through his second term as he had during his first.
Assuming that this is a valid method for determining “Lame Duckness”, if we perform the same search in 2017, we should see Obama’s rating drop to the same level as the Senate at some point before his second term ends. If it doesn’t, then I think we’d have to assume that the media simply likes him more. But seeing as Bush’s graph from Jan 2004-Jan 2005 does match Obama’s from Jan 2012-Jan 2013, that would imply that the media liked Bush previous to 2005, which doesn’t seem very likely to me. So I think this will turn out to be a valid method.
So while it may be a given that President Obama will be a lame duck at some point before he leaves office, so far he’s beating the last guy. And if the war with Putin keeps escalating, he could end up staying influential to the end.
A real lame duck can’t fly due to a wing has been injured or something like that or it can’t get off the water due to eating too many lead pellets in the little pond it landed in.
This President has presented many controversial Senate approved items that will affect this country for many years to come, ACA being just one of the items.
Congress still has immigration on the side lines held captive so to speak.
Being a lame duck President depends more on who controls the Senate than any other reasons given. Sure he can’t be elected to serve as President anymore which doesn’t mean he will get out of politics by the way. Hawaii or Illinois could still be his calling card to return to the Senate.
as for President Obama being pro muslim, as perceived by Muslims all over the world due to his two fathers alone being Muslims … give this redneck a break.
If he had two fathers from Texas that were Texans going all the way back to Sam Houston President Obama would be considered pro Texan, right?
Last I checked, Republicans said they would not move on that issue this year and at least some of them don’t want to do anything while Obama is in office.
What the shit are you talking about?
So what you’re saying is that I can declare any term I want to have any meaning I want so that I can use that term in random political diatribes?
Well, if that’s the case:
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
So there!
He’s already a lame duck, has been a lame duck since Jan. 2011. When you see your job as primarily passing legislation, then you can’t accomplish squat when the opposing party controls a chamber of Congress.
Now Obama could stop being a lame duck anytime he wanted to by doing his job: make the government work better, manage the country’s foreign policy, and execute the laws duly passed by Congress. Faithfully execute.
Dude. You need to step outside and get some fresh air.
You can call anyone a lame duck if you make up a job, ignore what he’s doing, and then complain he’s fulfilling the description you made up.
The definition I use: A leader who can no longer stand for election. By this definition, Obama’s been a lame duck since winning reelection.
The job of the President is clearly delineated in the Constitution. If he concentrates on that job, he’ll be a good President until the day he leaves office. But if he defines his success or failure by the legislation he wants passed, then he’ll find no one is listening.
My definition is a leader who no longer has any influence on events, and who the public has mostly tuned out.
I think Bush’s lame duck status was summarized best by Jon Stewart, who during the 2008 primaries went unmentioned on the show for several episodes. Then Stewart finally had something to report about ol’ GWB and said, “Boo! Heh heh. I’m still here.”
Although really, Bush became a lame duck early in 2005. Katrina and expending so much political capital on SS privatization ended his influence. As far as I can tell, Obama hasn’t had an influence on events since the 2010 election. Clinton he’s not.
I think this discards much of the history of the American presidency, but oh well.
The history of the Presidency involves managing foreign policy and executing the laws of this country faithfully. The surest way for a President to go down in history as awful is to fail at either of those two core jobs. Simply not passing legislation of note is something a President can get away with, seeing as how it’s not really his job. And any President that prioritizes that is likely to fail at his job. Admittedly though, I can’t think of any examples, because I’ve never seen a President so singularly focused on legislation. But why? He can’t enforce the laws he’s already been entrusted with, why does he want new ones?
I’m not going to ask who you think is managing U.S. foreign policy. To ask the question I’d have to pretend it even made sense, which it doesn’t.
He is, but is he giving it his full attention, or is he disinterested? I have not seen much in the way of foreign policy initiatives on his part. He reacts to things okay I guess, but he’s not really doing anything to positively influence events anywhere. No major trade treaties, no peace deals, not even really any real attempts to improve relations with anyone. There was an early attempt to improve relations with Russia, but evidently Putin interpreted that the wrong way.
A major test of Obama’s diplomatic skills is going to be getting Europe to go along with tough sanctions. If he can accomplish that, it will be a major feather in his cap.
This is a daft question.
Nope, no major trade deals. Not even this one.
He didn’t wind down Afghanistan and Iraq. Kept the lap hawks at bay and avoided getting embroiled in wars on several fronts. All while maintaining an aggressive and arguably successful military policy that could easily have led to wider, open conflict and wholesale loss of strategic alliances.
No ‘real’ attempts to improve relations with anyone? You’re right, that’s a major flaw right there–he certainly didn’t make any diplomatic advances. Nope.