Two people have questioned your appraisal of Obama’s leadership in the last two weeks. Both have identified evidence of his leadership in contrast to your characterization. Could you clarify what you meant by “weak” given this information? Also, what actions would have you thinking he is strong?
I don’t see how anyone can say this obstructism is working wonderfully for Republican Congresspeople. Well OK, they are acheiving their short-term goals of a do-nothing government but over the long term they are absolutely shooting themselves in the foot. They are risking the future viability of their party. Another 11 months of this and many incumbants will be out of a job. I think it behooves them to actually try to pass legislation that will, ya know, help the country.
Except of course that they won’t. The last number I saw put Congressional approval at 9% and it still won’t stop people from voting the party line.
By the way, Rasmussen (freaking Rasmussen!) had Obama’s approval rating at 50% last week, although it’s down again. Hardly crushing numbers for “Barry O”, especially considering the general state of the country.
What do you think of Harry Reid’s techniques in the senate?
The fact that only two have questioned my appraisal of Obama as weak, on a board that clearly leans to the left (I even believe there was a thread on that very issue), is actually fairly surprising. I fail to see where they presented evidence of anything to the sort other than a subjective analysis of his term thus far. I don’t want to derail this thread about Congressional obstructionism but happy to discuss in another thread (or in this on if appropriate).
Hopefully never. Bipartisanship means both parties get together to bend you over the table. Obstructionism could’ve prevented Iraq, the Patriot act, handouts to wall street, and the the health insurance mandate.
How many have to question you before you answer? It’s already been pointed out that Obama has not ‘disappeared’, but has been out doing his job. Is there a threshold that must be met before we get an answer? ‘I won’t answer until thirteen Lefties point it out!’?
When I write a program, I type OUT-ADDR1 = IN-ADDR1 once because that is sufficient. I don’t repeat the line multiple times.
Interestingly Obama has been in Asia when perhaps he should have been here pushing the super committee? No? Or maybe explaining why he refused to allow even a discussion of health care cuts. No? The big issues were here. He wasn’t. The sudden renewed interest in Australia etc. Is all well and good but not that important at this point in time. It strikes me as either he is cynically avoiding DC so that he can blame Congress or that he ran away because he knew it would fail. And he could have addressed the issue from there as needed.
Obama is a politician. Nothing more.
And comparing a discussion to coding is an interesting way of looking at things.
When the committee was formed, Republicans specifically asked him to not politicize the committee’s deliberations by interfering. Now they say he should have been more involved. :smack:
Your party is seriously schizophrenic, but they appear to like it that way.
It was politicized the moment healthcare was taken off the table. His being in Asia though might be a smart political move.
It’s funny as many liberals don’t really appreciate just how cynical and vicious the Chicago election machine really is and it’s in full flow for Obama 2012. They make the Republican machine look swooned rate.
Maybe what he should have done is propose healthcare reform so that the United States would have costs more in line with the rest of the world. That’s the good thing about conservatives, they are practical and not ideological. If we could just point to a successful model used elsewhere that saves money then they would support it.
[quote=“Lochdale, post:68, topic:603826”]
Interestingly Obama has been in Asia when perhaps he should have been here pushing the super committee? No?
[QUOTE]
Of course, another potential reason is that the Asia summit was planned and set up at least six months if not years in advance. I mean, US is important and all, but it is a little challenging to get that many leaders together at a set time. Or, Obama set it up on a few weeks notice to avoid being in Washington. Which one makes more sense?
OMG, you threw the Fox card down. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. That’s even funnier than your “president threatens to veto spinelessness” comment. The mark of a failed debate tactic is to criticize something that wasn’t mentioned or cited in lieu of a reasoned response.
What are you debating exactly?
Obama promised a lot of things. Delivered on very few.
He’s not going to veto this. In spite of his promises. Wanna make a bet on it?
So you the post prior to this one you claim that two independent presentations of Obama’s leadership are basically just “subjective”. More evidence has been submitted that Obama was busy leading while not behaving in the way you apparently expect. Among them are perfectly reasonable explanations for the timing of events.
You also present the section quoted above. Given the evidence which conclusion do you believe is most “subjective” or absent of supporting evidence (which is what i assume you mean).
Do you think Obama was a) running, b) avoiding, c) leading, d) something else.
If a) or b), how did Obama’s administration orchestrate his leaving and then have him state he would veto changes to military spending?
And I think this is relevant to Congressional obstructionism because some are presenting the opinion that Obama can break the impasse.
Sure bet whatever you want to bet.
Witnessed.
Back to the OP, obstructionism will not stop for two reasons:
-
Those that vote Republican do not want Democratic policies passed (even when they’re Republican policies from a decade ago), so they are happy to see obstruction. Republicans want those voters happy.
-
Those that vote Democratic don’t want Republican policies passed, so the Democrats aren’t going to give in and pass what ever legislation the Republicans want.
Two sides of the same coin. Those that are liberal see it as Republicans obstructing the process, those that are conservative see it as Republicans doing their job.
At any time, the Democrats could just do what ever the Republicans want (see War, Iraq; Taxes, lowered; Horrible Policies, Patriot Act) and obstructionism ends, how many of you want to see that?