Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck

[kenberg]

I am not objecting to a president giving a matter some thought. Thinking is good. It is most effective if done early in whatever is undertaken.

 

Most of what Mr. Obama wishes to have happen, I also wish to have happen (but I don't much care where the Olympics are held and i think Rio has a strong case). Better health care, more people covered, lower cost. All those opposed speak up.

 

There is an exchange somewhere in Shakespeare that goes someting like this (to put it mildly I am not a scholar)

 

I was going to quote Shaespeare, but Robert Bruner beat me to it

http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership...-challenge.html

 

Glendower: I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.

 

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

[awm]

I'm not disappointed in Obama as president. In fact I think it's ridiculous that people are so quick to judge him one way or another (especially if they are reversing the opinion they held of him prior to his presidency). So far I think he's been an improvement over Bush in a number of ways, but the jury is still out on a lot of his results. In particular:

 

(1) Obama passed a big economic stimulus package right away. The projection was for the economy to recover sometime in 2010. Will it? And how strong will the recovery be?

 

(2) Obama has made health care a priority for his administration. Will congress pass anything and what will it look like? I don't agree that "health reform is dead" -- in fact I think it's almost certain the congress passes something. The question is whether they will end up with a big giveaway to insurance companies in exchange for stopping only the worst abuses (which is what came out of the Senate finance committee as far as I'm concerned) or whether they come up with something with more teeth. I haven't been impressed by the debate thus far, but a lot of this is on Congress' shoulders and my expectations there weren't so high anyway. Obama can't pass laws by himself.

 

(3) Obama talks a good game on climate change, and it's an impressive change from Bush. But we have yet to see whether cap and trade is passed into law. The house bill is weaker than many would like but is still huge progress over the status quo.

 

(4) Obama is successfully reducing our troop presence in Iraq. We will see how long it takes to get all the troops out, and what happens to the Iraqi regime afterwards.

 

(5) Afghanistan is a mess, but I still believe it's the right war to be fighting if we're to stop terrorism. We'll see if things improve there, if we capture any big Al Qaeda targets, or if we just get bogged down or pull out without any significant accomplishments. We gave Bush six years to fight the war in Iraq and we went in with much less justification. Let's give Obama a few years in Afghanistan too.

 

I admit the Olympics thing seemed like a waste of time. But look at it this way -- Bush would've spent the time clearing brush on his ranch in Texas. I don't think we can begrudge Obama an attempt to get the Olympic Games in the USA (and his home town to boot) especially since he met with the Danish leaders on the trip too.

[mike777]

I agree I think there is still time for the current gov to:

 

1) pass cap and trade/massive changes in carbon taxes

2) massive changes/taxes in health care

3) pull all I mean all troops out of Iraq

4) Give President more years for A....

5) Pass even more for stimulus ..per Krugman....

[hrothgar]

I'm not disappointed in Obama as president. In fact I think it's ridiculous that people are so quick to judge him one way or another (especially if they are reversing the opinion they held of him prior to his presidency). So far I think he's been an improvement over Bush in a number of ways, but the jury is still out on a lot of his results.

I think Adam does a pretty good job on this one.

 

Years back, Zhou Enlai was asked what he thought about the French Revolution. He famously replied "Its too early to say". It seems ridiculous to be writing epitaphs for the Obama administration or, for that matter, to be celebrating its successes.

 

When Obama announced his candidacy, I hopped aboard the train. However, I never expected to agree with all, or even most, of his policy decisions. (While Obama was unfairly portrayed as the most liberal of all the Senators, at heart he is very much a centrist and a pragmatist). Now that he's in office, I find myself disagreeing with a number of his policy decision. Such is life...

 

When I do see Obama deviating from (my own) political orthodoxy, I still find a lot of areas where I'm able to take comfort.

 

First and foremost, there is the whole question of intensity. There have been a number of cases where Obama has pushed a policy where I go and say "Hmm. You know what, that doesn't make all that much sense. I wonder why he isn't doing X, Y, or Z instead". In contrast, back during the Bush years there were any number of situations in which found myself asking things like "WTF are these idiots doing? They just invaded the wrong country..., They just pissed away any chance of rapprochement with Iran..., they're inflating a massive housing bubble". This is scary for me to say - and I am still probably one of the younger members of this forum - I have pretty clear memories of a whole bunch of Presidencies, dating back to Reagan. I can't remember being particularly happy with any of them. Obama strikes me as the best of the lot.

 

Next: Obama, might not be getting everything perfect, however, he gets a hell of a lot of credit for not letting the economy melt down 12 months back. The fact that we managed a relatively soft landing buys him one hell of a lot of political capital. I recognize that the economy still isn't all that robust. Life really sucks if you have a job in manufacturing (and I don't see it getting much better) How, these industrial dynamics were established over the course of decades and no one man or one administration is going to be able to overturn them without unleashing something far far worse.

 

Last: I think that Obama is confronting MANY of the key issues that are facing the US. He's acting on health care, he's acting on trade, he's trying to fix the god awful hole that we dug ourselves into in Iraq and Afghanistan. All this, with the economy hovering as a massive distraction. There are plenty of other things that I like to see him act on - I'd like to see the major investment banks broken up - However, given the current political climate and the fear that things are "moving too fast", I don't see much room for manuever.

[kenberg]

Perhaps Adam's optimistic views will prove right, I hope so. I am not really reversing my views on Obama. I originally thought that I would be voting for McCain, eventually that seemed impossible, I voted for Obama. I was uneasy about it. I have an instinctive mistrust of people who make good speeches, the whole "Yes We Can" thing put my teeth on edge, and so on. I would have been more comfortable if there was more of a "Yes I did" aspect to the campaign.

 

Rescuing the economy was an accomplishment, the credit is shared by many, the rescue may still fail. Mr. Obama has not (yet) done anything as misguided as invading Iraq, so he is (so far) better than Bush but that is setting a very low threshold for praise.

 

I suppose there will be some sort of bill that can be called health care reform. I now see it as ominous. No situation is so bad that it cannot be made worse.

[jdonn]

Winston what would you like our military leaders to tell Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we can't be counted on but please cooperate with us anyway? Those statements do not mean the president is not in charge, it's PR pure and simple. You are really taking paranoia to a whole new level now, which is something I never thought I'd say to you.

 

Try a new exercise. Can you think of some good things you believe Obama has done?

[ArtK78]

Mr. Obama has not (yet) done anything as misguided as invading Iraq, so he is (so far) better than Bush but that is setting a very low threshold for praise.

Did you mean to say that to date Mr. Obama is better than Mr. Bush, or that Mr. Obama is so much better than Mr. Bush?

 

I believe both are accurate.

[kenberg]

I meant that so far he is better, not that he is far better. We can hope for far better, it's too early to tell, I think. He is being tested severely. I don't really want to even guess how it will go.

[Winstonm]

Winston what would you like our military leaders to tell Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we can't be counted on but please cooperate with us anyway? Those statements do not mean the president is not in charge, it's PR pure and simple. You are really taking paranoia to a whole new level now, which is something I never thought I'd say to you.

 

Try a new exercise. Can you think of some good things you believe Obama has done?

Sure, Josh, I can do that and don't mind. I don't think it is enough to say, though, that simply not being Bush constitutes success.

 

I give him high marks for negotiating with Iran and plainly stating that Iran has the right to a nuclear energy program.

 

I give him medium marks on at least addressing health care.

 

That's about the extent of it as far as I am concerned.

 

Concerning your other point - I think you are naive. MacArthur and Truman were at odds. Kennedy and the CIA were at odds. It is certainly not outlandish to say that McChrystal was overstepping his bounds by doing an infomercial on 60 minutes that offered no opposing views, that he was blatantly insubordinate when he made a speech that condemned Biden's ideas about Iran as basically "stupid"", and that it is truly odd that on the same day that Gates said it was wrong to make your views public (chastising McChrystal) he went on to say in public his own views were that the war was lost without more troops.

 

Why this need for all this escalation propaganda? Who profits - both politically and financially from the long war?

[jdonn]

McChrystal's behavior is analagous to the overstepping-of-bounds by Serena Williams, Joe Wilson, and Kanye West. It is a reflection on how society has changed in general, not of the power of the military being usurped. It's not propoganda, it's PR. You are still being beyond-paranoid.

 

 

I would add some more things Obama has done that I like, and I'm surprised if you don't.

 

He seems to be the first president in a while who shows he understands the Palastinians in the conflict with Israel have rights.

 

I thought it was fantastic he fought so hard to bring the olympics here. Why he received so much criticism for that is absolutely beyond me, except to say it mostly came from people whose full time jobs are to criticize him at all costs.

 

He acted swiftly on the economy, which seems to be making a quick (relatively speaking) turn-around. No I don't agree with everything he did on that, but he did a lot and he rose to the urgency of the situation.

 

Gitmo is closing. If it takes an extra month or 2 or 6 because they are receiving little cooperation and are taking action carefully that is fine because it is still being done. Only a third of the prisoners that were there before remain.

 

I am disappointed in some things that I stated before, but with all due respect you are being a debbie downer. He has done a lot of good things in, let's not forget, a very short time and starting from a very bad place.

[Winstonm]

This is something very good about the Obama administration - an aggressive press at a White House briefing.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/ob...nt-handle-truth

[Winstonm]

Let me address your points:

 

He seems to be the first president in a while who shows he understands the Palastinians in the conflict with Israel have rights

.

 

Yes, this is good but there has been no real action. I am waiting for something concrete to occur.

 

I thought it was fantastic he fought so hard to bring the olympics here. Why he received so much criticism for that is absolutely beyond me, except to say it mostly came from people whose full time jobs are to criticize him at all costs.

 

I thought that was fine and proper - the bashing is dumb, IMO.

 

He acted swiftly on the economy, which seems to be making a quick (relatively speaking) turn-around. No I don't agree with everything he did on that, but he did a lot and he rose to the urgency of the situation.

 

These were not his ideas at all - his finance team had this in place along with the Federal Reserve. The verdict is still out - and will be for some time to come - whether this worked. Check out Japan's lost generation for a possible non-recovery situation.

 

Gitmo is closing. If it takes an extra month or 2 or 6 because they are receiving little cooperation and are taking action carefully that is fine because it is still being done. Only a third of the prisoners that were there before remain.

 

This is a meaningless political action - his administration still claims the right to hold foreigners without rights or charges at Bagram in Afghanistan. The best result of this administration was finally abandoning its attempt to re-write the military commissions practices that debased the entire concept of the rule of law.

 

I am disappointed in some things that I stated before, but with all due respect you are being a debbie downer. He has done a lot of good things in, let's not forget, a very short time and starting from a very bad place.

 

I don't think Obama is a complete failure - I think so far he has disappointed many, though. But he still has a chance to turn much of that around - and I think he is the smartest President aside from Clinton we have had in the White House in decades.

 

I am concerned from whom he chooses to receive advice - Tom Daschle is not the best role model.

[jdonn]

I don't think you are being fair regarding the economy (HIS finance team, you say?) but mostly fair enough. Two final points.

 

- One man's "meaningless political action" is another man's "meaningful symbolic action". And if it gets us more cooperation around the world from other countries on various issues then it wasn't meaningless anyway.

 

- I disagree with you on one thing. He does not have a chance to turn around that he is disappointing many, all he can do is change who gets disappointed.

[Winstonm]

This is getting boring - I agree with you for the most part. ;)

 

- One man's "meaningless political action" is another man's "meaningful symbolic action". And if it gets us more cooperation around the world from other countries on various issues then it wasn't meaningless anyway.

 

Depends on perspective, to be sure. My perspective on this particular matter happens to be from the rule of law and civil rights - and that does for sure rule out for me addressing any benefit of positive perceptions as meaningful, although I acknowledge them as meaningful in the perspective you presented.

 

- I disagree with you on one thing. He does not have a chance to turn around that he is disappointing many, all he can do is change who gets disappointed.

 

I think this is exceptionally well stated.

[Winstonm]

I don't think you are being fair regarding the economy (HIS finance team, you say?) but mostly fair enough. Two final points.

 

- One man's "meaningless political action" is another man's "meaningful symbolic action". And if it gets us more cooperation around the world from other countries on various issues then it wasn't meaningless anyway.

 

- I disagree with you on one thing. He does not have a chance to turn around that he is disappointing many, all he can do is change who gets disappointed.

Just for the record, Glenn Greenwald has this input about the Obama administration thus far:

 

If an historian were to write about the events of the first nine months of 2009 when it came to transparency issues as they relate to the war crimes of the Bush years, the following is what would be written.  Just remember this was all done with an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President elected on a promise to usher in "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and "a new era of openness in our country."  There's no blaming Republicans for any of this:

 

    In February, the Obama DOJ went to court to block victims of rendition and torture from having a day in court, adopting in full the Bush argument that whatever was done to the victims is a "state secret" and national security would be harmed if the case proceeded.  The following week, the Obama DOJ invoked the same "secrecy" argument to insist that victims of illegal warrantless eavesdropping must be barred from a day in court, and when the Obama administration lost that argument, they engaged in a series of extraordinary manuevers to avoid complying with the court's order that the case proceed, to the point where the GOP-appointed federal judge threatened the Government with sanctions for noncompliance.  Two weeks later, "the Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, [tried] to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

 

    In April, the Obama DOJ, in order to demand dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Bush officials for illegal spying on Americans, not only invoked the Bush/Cheney "state secrets" theory, but also invented a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim to insist Bush officials are immune from consequences for illegal domestic spying.  The same month -- in the case brought by torture victims -- an appeals court ruled against the Obama DOJ on its "secrecy" claims, yet the administration vowed to keep appealing to prevent any judicial review of the interrogation program.  In responses to these abuses, a handful of Democratic legislators re-introduced Bush-era legislation to restrict the President from asserting "state secrets" claims to dismiss lawsuits, but it stalled in Congress all year.  At the end of April and then again in August, the administration did respond to a FOIA lawsuit seeking the release of torture documents by releasing some of those documents, emphasizing that they had no choice in light of clear legal requirements.

 

    In May, after the British High Court ruled that a torture victim had the right to obtain evidence in the possession of British intelligence agencies documeting the CIA's abuse of him, the Obama administration threatened that it would cut off intelligence-sharing with Britain if the court revealed those facts, causing the court to conceal them.  Also in May, Obama announced he had changed his mind and would fight-- rather than comply with -- two separate, unanimous court orders compelling the disclosure of Bush-era torture photos, and weeks later, vowed he would do anything (including issue an Executive Order or support a new FISA exemption) to prevent disclosure of those photos in the event he lost yet again, this time in the Supreme Court.  In June, the administration "objected to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security."  In August, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder announced that while some rogue torturers may be subject to prosecution, any Bush officials who relied on Bush DOJ torture memos in "good faith" will "be protected from legal jeopardy."  And all year long, the Obama DOJ fought (unsuccessfully) to keep encaged at Guantanamo a man whom Bush officials had tortured while knowing he was innocent.

[PassedOut]

I never expected Obama to be a perfect president, and I do share many of the feelings of other posters here. On the other hand, he's so much better than his predecessor (and he began with such a difficult situation) that I'm still very pleased with the change. He'll need more concrete achievements, but I'm very willing to see how his initiatives turn out over the next couple of years before judging his work.

[mike777]

To be fair Bush started out with a difficult situation at this point in time.

 

 

I agree most would not post:

 

 

 

"I'm still very pleased with the change. He'll need more concrete achievements, but I'm very willing to see how his initiatives turn out over the next couple of years before judging his work."

[PassedOut]

To be fair Bush started out with a difficult situation at this point in time.

Bush started with a budget surplus and immediately returned the US to fiscal irresponsiblility.

 

In his first few months, his administration ignored the warnings from the Clinton people about the threat from al Qaeda until the 9/11 attacks. After a shaky few hours, he did rally the people and (in my view) acted appropriately in going after the attackers. At that time, Bush had a great deal of sympathy and support from me and many, many others in the US and across the world. I agree that the 9/11 attacks created a difficult situation for him.

 

After that, Bush's presidency was a long, slow-unfolding nightmare of obviously disastrous mistakes, starting with his decision to start a different and unnecessary war instead of finishing the one that made sense.

 

I do realize that Obama disappoints and angers people by refusing to draw firm lines in the sand in support of policies they consider sacrosanct, and I have those reactions myself. However, I try to keep in mind the fact that he can't get anything done without congressional support, and that his sincere efforts at bipartisanship are firmly rebuffed. And I don't want him to adopt an all-or-nothing stance that ultimately prevents even partial solutions to the serious problems faced by the US.

 

The democrats in congress, on the other hand, should be horsewhipped if they can't work together with Obama on issues like health care and climate change. If the democrats can't get those things done with the majorities they have in both houses and a democrat in the white house, what good are they? -- a point I like to make when talking with or writing to my own representatives.