Sure.
But I should add that I expect very little from U.S. presidents generally and had no particular high hopes for this one. I’m a wee bit cynical that way. I just judged Obama better than the alternative and as I sit here I still do.
I did think the symbolism of his election was kind of neat ( heck, so did McCain ). Still do on that front as well.
Just for shits and giggles, I would like the OP to name the last competent president in his estimation.
I can’t help but notice my “what should he do about the oil spill?” question went begging. I realize how impotent he looks in this situation but I don’t know what anyone expects him to do. If he marched down to the Gulf tomorrow and said “the government is now in charge of this operation,” what would they do to cap the leak? The mistakes were made before the leak happened: regulators were again too cozy with their industries, allowing BP to get a permit without doing an environmental study, allowing them to drill without knowing what they would do if something went wrong, and the government didn’t have a plan of its own if some kind of disaster happened. Those problems antedate Obama but he didn’t fix them. He should have.
So what? I’m supposed to care what James Carville thinks all of a sudden? I didn’t get where I am by caring about Gollum. 
Aside from that: you said you voted for Obama because you thought he would do better than McCain. Even if he’s done badly, that doesn’t prove they would have done better.
Again, so what? It’s a minor thing that’ll be forgotten quickly.
Endorsements hardly ever matter. Specter and Coakley lost on their own terms: Specter lost because of anti-incumbent sentiment and because party switching did not win him many friends. It made him look like a cynical hack with no interests except saving his own ass - what a coincidence, he looked like exactly what he was! - and he didn’t appeal to the base of his new party. Coakley ran a horrible campaign. Neither of them lost because Obama endorsed them.
Yes.
Bill Clinton, of course. I disagreed with most of his agenda, such as it was, but he was a man with admirable political skills and a competent enough administrator. For Obama to use him in this penny ante way in a second-rate Chicago-style backroom maneuver, when he could be down in LA side by side with Carville as the administration’s high commissioner on gettin’ 'er done on the oil spill, is one of the dumber things I’ve seen.
At the very least, he could have told the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to get out of the way of the people working on this. He could have recognized this disaster for what it is from the outset and been out there working on it, in the public eye, with help from heavyweights like Bill Clinton (see above). As it is, he seems to have regarded it as an annoyance disturbing his well-earned rest after spending an entire year ramming through ObamaCare to the exclusion of all other issues.
I’m sure BP would have come up with a solution by now if the EPA wasn’t in the way.
Right, he could have made himself look busier. What he could have done that would have made a difference remains vague.
Eh. If you’re mad at him and want to grouse, you’re entitled. But this gripe doesn’t make sense and your arguments for your OP aren’t very strong.
Good point. As everybody knows*, it’s being antithetical to MY views that defines someone as being incompetent.
*Well, now that I’ve gone to the trouble of pointing it out, everybody knows it.
Since you’ve admitted this thread is really about health care, how about explaining exactly what constitutes “ramming through”, and provide your perspective on how the process should have gone?
All discussion? I was quoting you:
It’s of some minor relevance when discussing how things were when Bush left office to mention how they were when he* took *office.
Anyway, you’re making it too complicated. Barring some extreme national crisis (of which I named two, neither of them in the 2000-2009 period), the U.S. continues to grow regardless of who is president. Bush43 had many views (incidentally antithetical to mine) and applied them in ways that, I figure, hurt the country more than benefited it. Of course, it’s not Bush43 alone, but the political climate helping him along.
lolwat? What about “when Bush left office” makes you think I was talking about anything but… I dunno… When Bush left office?
My quote speaks only of Obama following GWB. My quote never even hints about Gore/Kerry/ABB (anyone but Bush) and some hypothetical presidency that tok place instead of GWB. All I was discussing was what Obama inherited in real life.
Sorry if you were confused.
I disagree as far as this discussion goes. This discussion is about how things are compared to when his predesessor took office. It doesn’t exist in a vaccuum, sure, but it’s not any more relevant to discuss 5 years before or 50 years before or a whole damn history lesson than just to take the discussion at face value.
What, in discussing hypotheticals, it’s not relevant to mention real-life occurrences? It’s not I who is confused.
If I may say something, I would like to comment on a situation (voting for someone who is really antithetical to your views) that, in a similar way, happened in the 2nd round of the French presidential election of 2002. Everybody expected that, after the 1st round of the elections, it would be business as usual, with Chirac (centre-right) and Jospin (centre-left) going into the second round, and everything going on as it had almost always gone.
However, it was not so: Everybody was so sure of the final result that turnout was extraordinarily low. What happened was that, of five candidates, the two that went into the second round were Chirac, and… Le Pen (National Front, extreme right).
In the second round, Chirac won by a landslide (82% of the vote), but there were many election posters (put by the parties that would have been supporting Jospin) that said “Vote for the crook, not for the fascist” or “vote with a clothespin on your nose”.
I don’t know if this counts as related to the OP (although it can be said that Chirac was definitely more competent than Le Pen – he had way more politics and government experience). But I thought it was an interesting aside.
Imagine a candidate who is asked while debating, “Who is your preferred spiritual advisor?”
The only qualified candidate IMO is one who responds with, “Why the hell would I need that? Won’t I have advisors?” 
That is interesting, and pretty much in the neighborhood of what I was thinking of. But to be more specific, I guess I wanted to ask if anyone might also be inclined to vote against someone they might ordinarily support, because they (the candidates) were drooling idiots in comparison to the other guy. I guess to make it a perfect analogy, Jospin would be hit by a bus and his party (parties?) replaced him with a half senile 80 year old man, who hardly knew what was going on around him. Agreeable old fellow, and his views are spot on with yours but, um, grandpa really needs to be kept away from the sharp implements of state, if you know what I mean. Would the same people have voted for Chirac then?
While there’s certainly a case to be made that, in the event of unforseen catastrophies, really, a competent leader of whatever mainstream idealogy is better than an incompetent one, but of your own beliefs, I don’t believe it’s a clinching argument. For one thing, there’s the matter of the lead-up to the catastrophy happening; a leader can’t stop a tornado or earthquake, but they do affect support apparatus before such things happen.
I think that the level of urgency would greatly affect my voting choices. For example, the recent economic issues have made me consider the choices I had in the recent general election over here in the UK in those terms; I would be more likely to pick a person I disagree with a bit more if I evaluated their money skills higher. But generally recessions and the like aren’t, happily, all that common.
A pointless one. You’re still just as responsible for who actually gets elected. Inaction is still a choice. You just chose to let the people who do vote to decide for you.
And competent and effective are not the same thing. When I think incompetent, I think someone like Palin, who I would not think competent enough to actually do the normal stuff. There is plenty about being a president that is not about politics, and even if I was a heavy right-winger, I don’t see how I could have voted for her. We’ve already seen what happens when a more qualified but not quite confident president takes office.
Anyways, it all boils down to how incompetent and how important the ideas that they oppose me on are.
I’m Canadian, and this is effectively the choice I keep haping to make. Of course, we never get a candidate who’s completely antitheical (sp?) to my views - I guess that would be Adolf Hitler, who is dead and in any event wasn’t Canadian - but some are closer to my ideological views than others.
There are three major party leaders: Stephen Harper, who’s the current Prime Minister; Michael Ignatieff, whos the current Liberal and Opposition leader; and Jack Layton, who’s the leader of the third party, the NDP. (There is a fourth major party but they only stand for office in Quebec.)
WEre you to add up all their views, there’s not a doubt in my mind Michael Ignatieff is probably closerto my personal views than either Harper or Layton. Nonetheless, if there was an election tomorrow, I would vote for Mr. Harper’s party, not Mr. Ignatieff’s. My honest impression of Mr. Ignatieff is that he’s a pompous, feckless, elitist twit whose only interest in Canada, a country he could not be bothered to live in for most of his adult life until someone offered to let him take public office. He has no discernible plan that exptend beyond getting elected and I don’t, in my heart or hearts, think he would be even mildly competent as Prime Minister.
Harper, while I disagree with him on some major issues, seems reasonably competent y comparison.
In office, ideology is usually trumped by necessity. Stephen Harper is apparently anti-abortion but in practice the issue has never even been visited by his government. He’s apparently anti-gay-marriage but he deliberately allowed a vote against it to fail to appease voters like me. I’m willing to play the odds with my vote and see whether his differeing views will actually affect the country in a way and to an extent I find unacceptable. So far, that isn’t the case, and (granting this may change) I feel the country is better off with Harper as PM rather than Ignatieff, even though, over a few beers, I’d probably agree with Ignatieff on more points of ideology.