Was McCain Right?

[Havok]

I dunno, maybe I am waxing nostalgic, but isn't that exactly the type of thing that the celebrated Presidents of the past did?

[Simon_Jester]

Hey Bilbo, how many times did Bush golf during Katrina? Or the Iraq War? Or after 9/11?

Obama is doing the best he can, unfortunately the bastard is a honest damned "Idealist" and truly believes if he is just nice to others they will see things his way. He's like a puppy that doesn't know why people keep kicking it, and keeps going back hoping for a different result.

The problem is that "he's doing the best he can" when he's not doing very well is a pretty damning observation by itself.

Oh I think he has plenty of political experience. He was a moderate who sold himself to the progressives as one of them, now he is trying to be a centrist in a very polarized atmosphere. I think his 'failures' have more to do with his staff at the moment, and not necessarily with him, though perhaps 'playing it safe' is more his idea than his, if his staff prods and pokes him to take a stand on an issue, he'd be in a better spot on issues.

I would argue that trying to be a centrist in this atmosphere is itself a failure of government. Politics is the art of the possible, and centrism in a polarized situation isn't possible: it's just a good way to get accused of selling out by both sides. Obama doesn't gain as much by reaching to the right as he loses on the left. And I think if he were a good political tactician, he'd recognize that he's hurting himself this way.

One possibility is that Obama honestly believes that Republicans are right on, say, 40% of the issues- enough to justify splitting the difference between them and the Dems, but not enough to outright join the Republican party. If so, his political tactics are very clever as a way to sneak large chunks of the Republican platform through under a uniformly Democratic government, but it's reasonable to ask whether he has a right to do that when that's not what he was elected to do.

The other is that it's all a ploy... but in that case, his tactics aren't working. He's trying to win political capital and achieve good things by steering to the center-right and compromising between center and right (there is no "left" option in the US, not really). And it isn't happening, because the far right is going all in and trying to break him rather than cooperate with him. And he's had eighteen months now to recognize this pattern; if he hasn't figured it out now, with the entire left wing of his own party and most of the blogosphere screaming at him, then I'm not sure he ever will.

How can you say that the President is not at fault though. He is the President, wills are supposed to bend to his, not his to his staff.

I'd say that's a lazy way of looking at it. I mean there's not a whole lot any President can do about a majority opposition vote if the opposition really hates the sitting President without ignoring the existing laws (which is what a lot of people complained about Bush doing, amusingly. . .), for example.

Well, a president should be able to control his own staff. He shouldn't be able to (and generally can't) ride roughshod over Congress or state governments or the like. But he should at least be able to control his own employees, and fire ones who do something foolish.

Obama isn't even doing that very well. Which means that in effect he becomes responsible for the mistakes made by his subordinates, even if he's not responsible for the acts of other groups like the Congressional Democrats.

[Havok]

That's the perception isn't it? But the job is huge, and sooner or later he's going to have to let things go to his staff. Whether this means for proof reading, policy construction, or just plain he doesn't have time to deal with XYZ. Problem with staff, though, is they come with their own agenda's, needs and wants. Right now, I don't think some of his advisers are even close to in sync with the President on some issues, whether or not the President would be stronger/weaker on any specific issue if they were not withstanding.

I'm not saying that the man needs to do everything, but his staff should carry out his will. See my previous post about waxing nostalgic... or maybe I just watched too much West Wing.

[Temujin]

I don't think the problem is Obama's lack of experience... I think it's more that he's just not the FDR throwback that everyone was hoping for. He's exactly what people who had their head removed from his ass said he was... a centrist who leans right on some issues, a somewhat weak leader who gives great speeches, a realist who is willing to compromise, and somewhat of a wuss who cares more about being liked and his legacy than a determined leader who's going to do what he thinks is right, and to hell with those who disagree.

Liberals are pissed because he's not liberal enough
Conservatives are pissed because he's not liberal enough, so they're just flat out making shit up
And Moderates are pissed because he doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything

That about sums it up.

I voted: "No, he's doing the best he can with what he's got", because he is. Experience can help or not, and may even hurt (i.e., being too much of a Washington insider.) Overall intelligence, competence, honesty, etc. will ultimately effect how he approaches his job.

My problem with Obama is that he tends to talk out both sides of his face. Somewhere he said something about him rather being an effective one term president, rather than a two term president. Well than take some fucking risks and try to push legislation through, use signing statements, etc! Use the god damned Imperial Presidential authority to offset the GOP's "Just Say No" strategy!

There was talk of him being from Chicago that we would see "the Chicago Way" in action in Washington. Instead he comes across as a simpering, ineffectual clown too willing to compromise with the GOP, and not supportive enough of progressives in his own party. Sometimes it almost seems like he's trying to play King Solomon, while trying to present his golden mean approach to the presidency.

[General Zod]

Well, a president should be able to control his own staff. He shouldn't be able to (and generally can't) ride roughshod over Congress or state governments or the like. But he should at least be able to control his own employees, and fire ones who do something foolish.

Obama isn't even doing that very well. Which means that in effect he becomes responsible for the mistakes made by his subordinates, even if he's not responsible for the acts of other groups like the Congressional Democrats.

Aside from the obvious examples of McChrystal. . . exactly which staff is he not 'controlling'?

[Liberty]

He makes me think of McGovern, to be quite honest.

[Connor MacLeod]

What I am finding interesting in this discussion (and many that happen in N&P) is that few people (although coyote did touch on this, for example) is that noone acknowledges the fundamental problems with the US system in and of itself. I honestly do want to know from people who are criticizing Obama just what they think he could do that wouldn't backfire or cause him troubles down the line that he hasn't done yet.

otherwise: Coyote's assessment pretty much my own view. I didnt expect a great deal from Obama, I fully expected problems with the Republicans (and frankly with the Democrats, considering the problems during the election itself), and everything else. I felt at the time (and I still do) think that people expect far too much of him (Frankly the way he was ushered in as president, I keep thinking people act like he's Jesus Christ, esp with the OMFGHESBLACKHESBLACK stuff.) That he's gotten ANYTHING done at all is frankly amazing to me. But what with special interest groups, lobbying, all the money and corruption, the general stupidity and ignorance of parts (I'll leave it up to others to decide percentages) of the American public and the apathy in other parts, the general drive towards self interest over everything else (which one could argue has become a rather *fundamental* american trait overall, and not just politics), the need to appease voters and public perception, the competition.. god I could go on with the problems. Anyhow, it all sums up with the general way the USA was set up from the get go to make progress difficult if not impossible. (fucking things up, however, seems to be quite easy.)

[Simon_Jester]

Aside from the obvious examples of McChrystal. . . exactly which staff is he not 'controlling'?

Ask Havok.

Seriously, I can't think of a specific example. Maybe I'm flat wrong and Obama is firmly in control of the executive branch... which, given the job the executive branch is doing, is not encouraging.

What I am finding interesting in this discussion (and many that happen in N&P) is that few people (although coyote did touch on this, for example) is that noone acknowledges the fundamental problems with the US system in and of itself.

I have done so quite recently in other threads, as here (in my second section out of three).

I honestly do want to know from people who are criticizing Obama just what they think he could do that wouldn't backfire or cause him troubles down the line that he hasn't done yet.

Many of my complaints revolve around specific bad calls: cancelling Constellation, not cancelling or moving to cancel Guantanamo, taking the constitutionally very questionable step of assassinating a US citizen accused of terrorism overseas. Things like that. I'm not complaining about him not having gotten more huge grandiose projects done; I'm complaining about specific bad decisions he's made, many of which appear to be the product of inertia and holdover from the Bush era. Obama has been in office for many months; that's no longer an excuse. If he's still doing the kinds of things we associate with Bush (or stupidly canceling the few good things Bush did), then that indicates that he, personally, approves of operating that way.

I don't care for that.

Now, I do think Obama has not done as much in terms of grand projects as he ideally should, but I don't blame that on him so much as on the system. What I do hold Obama responsible for are specific decisions he actively made that I think are bad.

otherwise: Coyote's assessment pretty much my own view. I didnt expect a great deal from Obama, I fully expected problems with the Republicans (and frankly with the Democrats, considering the problems during the election itself), and everything else. I felt at the time (and I still do) think that people expect far too much of him (Frankly the way he was ushered in as president, I keep thinking people act like he's Jesus Christ, esp with the OMFGHESBLACKHESBLACK stuff.)

Me? Nah. I just thought he'd be a good president. Back in 2008 I still underestimated just how paralyzed and fucked up the US government was structurally. I thought it was mostly a Republican thing, and that Democrats elected to make the machine run would be able and willing to get it running, for fear of having their own base turn on them. That turned out not to be true, and I was very disappointed to learn that.

But I never mistook Obama for Jesus. It was always more like "Wow, I think this guy might honestly do a good job." But doing a good job in this environment is so difficult that even assuming Obama is competent (which I no longer assume), he would probably be unable to do as much as I hoped when I voted for him.

That said, even knowing how difficult his job is, I am still very disappointed in him for specific calls he's made that I saw as pointless, unnecessary bad policy calls- cases where doing nothing would have been better than what he actually did.

[General Zod]

Ask Havok.

Seriously, I can't think of a specific example. Maybe I'm flat wrong and Obama is firmly in control of the executive branch... which, given the job the executive branch is doing, is not encouraging.

Do you even know what you mean by 'in control'? or is it something you just threw out because it sounded good at the time?

[Edi]

Back in 2008 I had conversations with some of my friends where they believed that, and I quote, "Obama is a useless empty suit with the best PR money can buy. He talks big but he will fail to deliver". I was willing to wait & see, but after seeing how he did nothing with financial reform, his hiring of a fucking tax cheat to run the Treasury, the healthcare reform dickup and now the BP boondoggle, I'm in full agreement with my friends. Yeah he got handed some lemons, but did he make lemonaide out of it? Fuck no.

He also hasn't learned how to play hardball. When trying to reach a compromise with the Republicans gets him assraped every time, what does he do? He bends over and asks for another raping. When is he gonna learn that it doesn't work, ain't gonna get shit done, and upsets his voter base?

I don't know if it's lack of experience, lack of balls, or maybe he just doesn't have what it takes to deal with the responsibilities of his position. He seems stuck in permanent campaign PR mode and has yet to get down and get shit done.

Quoted for truth.

When one scratches beneath the surface a little more, many of these fuckups start looking far more intentional. Meaningful health care reform was thrown under the special interest bus even before any real negotiations started with the backroom deal with Big Pharma.

The oil spill cleanup handling and the continuing coverup and support of BP speaks for itself.

And the thing that really sticks out is that whenever Obama has had a choice of backing up a moderate (or shock horror, a liberal) Democratic candidate over a conservative Democrat, he has always sided squarely with the conservative side, with the Blue Dogs.

It's not like the President has no influence. He has enormous amounts of it and if he uses it, he can get things done. Obama has shown a willingness to use his influence whenever he can support a conservative or center-right position over an actual liberal one.

Then there is not only not closing Guantanamo but trying to import it to continental US, to Thompson, Illinois, establishing the precedent of throwing people in prison just on his say-so without any regard for that pesky document called the constitution, which he is supposed to be a legal expert on.

And if that was not all, he has claimed the power to assassinate American citizens who are merely suspected or accused of terrorism without any due process review, which is actually going a lot farther on the path Bush and Cheney started the US down on than Bush and Cheney did. They merely threw people in prison and eavesdropped without review. Assassination was still off the table for them.

Obama has also turned the national debate on whether to have things like Guantanamo and all the other due process violations to a national consensus that yes, they are a-okay. Before, it used to be the neocons and other right wingers supporting those things. These days it's the Democrats as well and anyone speaking up against is labeled a fringe leftist.

Yes, McCain could have been worse. But that is not a given, because if he had won, you at least would have a more polarized nation where all this bullshit wasn't lapped up by quite as many people as it is today instead of the current consensus that tearing up the claimed principles of the country is a good thing to do. I don't see a whole lot of good prospects for the US economy, debt levels and other things of that sort in the near future, so another added bonus of a McCain presidency running the US to the ground would be that it couldn't as easily be blamed on the liberals and Democrats.

Obama has great oratory skills and gives pretty speeches. Actual competence? He's been pretty damn good at keeping it out of sight.

[D.Turtle]

The thing is, I think that the vast majority of things that people criticize Obama for are not cause by his inexperience, but rather by his love of bipartisanship, him being a mainstream - hence corporatist - american politician, and his view of the role of government (especially the executive).

So no, I don't think his inexperience hurts him, rather the outcomes are caused by his political views. They might change with time, but they are representative of the politics that have become mainstream in the US during the last 2-3 decades.

[Coyote]

The thing is, I don't think you can ignore McCain as the alternative. If you thought Obama wasn't experienced enough, he was the only other choice. Him and Governor RealDoll. So a lot of people who might have not voted for Obama did so to keep the Two Whack Crew out of the seats of power-- not because they thought Obama would do a good job.

People who thought Obama wasn't experienced enough were originally going to back Hillary. They sure as hell weren't going to switch to McCain, except for a small handful of people who decided to back the Repub ticket solely to "have a woman in a position of power", the "vacuous vag vote" that based their voting on things like who is right or left handed, who "looks Presidential", and so on. (Although to be fair I'm sure a lot of people voted for Obama just because "it'd be cool to have a Black President").

[aerius]

I dunno, maybe I am waxing nostalgic, but isn't that exactly the type of thing that the celebrated Presidents of the past did?

I don't know much about American history, but it sure seems that way. They all bent the rules and kicked people in the ass to get things done, because your government system is setup in such a way that doing the above is the only way to get shit done.

Well, a president should be able to control his own staff. He shouldn't be able to (and generally can't) ride roughshod over Congress or state governments or the like. But he should at least be able to control his own employees, and fire ones who do something foolish.

Obama isn't even doing that very well. Which means that in effect he becomes responsible for the mistakes made by his subordinates, even if he's not responsible for the acts of other groups like the Congressional Democrats.

Aside from the obvious examples of McChrystal. . . exactly which staff is he not 'controlling'?

TurboTax Timmy, Helicopter Ben, Larry Summers, and pretty much everyone on the finance & economics side who isn't named Paul Volcker. Volcker is the only voice of sanity yet Obama completely ignores him and does everything the Summers and Timmy say to do, which is hilarious since those 2 are the assclowns responsible for the current economic mess (look up Larry Summers on wiki some day). They fucked up, they're still there, and he's still listening to them.

[Cecelia5578]

I think its interesting that it seems like the most scathing criticism of Obama is coming from non-Americans.

[CarsonPalmer]

I'd like to see someone make a case for how McCain would have handled the situation better myself. It's easy to say Obama's "inexperienced/incompetent/whatever", but I doubt McCain really would have done a better job.

McCain's advantage would probably be that the GOP wouldn't be harassing him no matter what he did, giving him a greater ability to respond to the crisis by ordering things done. Nothing to do with his merits or any weaknesses of Obama's, mind you, but it would be an advantage. Of course, in many other areas, McCain would be actively (if inadvertantly) causing harm, so that's no endorsement.

[aerius]

I think its interesting that it seems like the most scathing criticism of Obama is coming from non-Americans.

1) We have a functional media

2) We know what a functional leader looks like because we've actually had them. We've had politicians in recent history who got shit done depite minority governments, coalition governments, unco-operative opposition parties and special interest groups.

Using Canada as an example, Stephen Harper, as much as I hate that cocksucker, is getting shit done and ramming his agenda through parliament despite being the leader of a minority government. He's got balls, plays dirty, and he's not afraid to piss people off to get what he wants. If he were in Obama's shoes he'd all the Democrats marching in lockstep, all the bills would go through exactly the way he wants them to go through, and the Republicans would be pissing their pants.

[Cecelia5578]

I think its interesting that it seems like the most scathing criticism of Obama is coming from non-Americans.

1) We have a functional media

2) We know what a functional leader looks like because we've actually had them. We've had politicians in recent history who got shit done depite minority governments, coalition governments, unco-operative opposition parties and special interest groups.

Using Canada as an example, Stephen Harper, as much as I hate that cocksucker, is getting shit done and ramming his agenda through parliament despite being the leader of a minority government. He's got balls, plays dirty, and he's not afraid to piss people off to get what he wants. If he were in Obama's shoes he'd all the Democrats marching in lockstep, all the bills would go through exactly the way he wants them to go through, and the Republicans would be pissing their pants.

I don't think I'm a slouch when it comes to American history and politics, but I myself tend to sympathize with both you and Edi when it comes to this. I think we (the Royal "we as all Americans we) have internalized too much of the structural problems and have learned to live with them, unfortunately.

At the same time, we do have unique structural problems compared to more civilized countries that makes any real change impossible-our free market fetish, the stench of religion in the public sphere, the sacrosanct nature of the Defense Department (i.e. govt spending), rule by corporation, etc.

[D.Turtle]

TurboTax Timmy, Helicopter Ben, Larry Summers, and pretty much everyone on the finance & economics side who isn't named Paul Volcker. Volcker is the only voice of sanity yet Obama completely ignores him and does everything the Summers and Timmy say to do, which is hilarious since those 2 are the assclowns responsible for the current economic mess (look up Larry Summers on wiki some day). They fucked up, they're still there, and he's still listening to them.

Well, isn't that more of a problem of economics than politics?

I mean, they pretty much represent mainstream american economic theory (I'll ignore the tax-dodging stuff for now). I mean, yes, certain circles see (parts of) mainstream economics as debunked by the global financial crash, but mainstream economics is still mainstream economics. The blame there isn't so much on Obama's IMHO, but rather on economics.

This again goes to the fact that Obama is a moderate, mainstream Democrat, and this means he is a corporatist.

So again, not inexperience, but political leaning.

[ArmorPierce]

We are now at the half way point of Obama's presidency and I daresay some of his supporters have all felt moments of let down from the promise that he seemed to have for those who listened to his rhetoric.

In light of such things as the Oil Spill in the Gulf, the battle for Healthcare, the handling of criminal trials for terrorists in NYC, etc. You name the crisis and his response - do you get a troubling sense that MAYBE, just MAYBE McCain may have been right when he said Obama lacked the neccessary experience to take on a job with the kind or responsibilities that being chief executive requires or are you satisfied with his job performance so far or as a third option is he doing the best he can with the cards he's been dealt such as the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Let me know. Also this is not the forum for Obama bashing or any of that other nonsense. It's a frank discussion about a criticism that was leveled against him now that we have actual instances of his decision making process and its results.

Your missing the 4th option, No, but he's not doing the best job.

[Simon_Jester]

Ask Havok.
Seriously, I can't think of a specific example. Maybe I'm flat wrong and Obama is firmly in control of the executive branch... which, given the job the executive branch is doing, is not encouraging.

Do you even know what you mean by 'in control'? or is it something you just threw out because it sounded good at the time?

I mean that his subordinates should not be able to make significant decisions with policy implications without his support and agreement. Because Obama is at the top of the executive branch's chain of command, he is responsible for what they do, even when they do things that are foolish.

A president who is "in control" is one with the power to place his stamp on policy coming out of his administration, one who will press the executive branch to pursue good policies, and restrain the executive branch from pursuing bad policies. A president who is not "in control" lacks the ability to do so, either because the bureaucracy (including his own appointees) are running rings around him, or because of some weakness of character that lets his staff and advisers manipulate him easily.

If Obama is "in control," than that means all the bad decisions I condemn are his own personal decisions- things he weighed on their merits and decided to support. That says bad things about him. If Obama is not "in control," then his appointees are making bad decisions and he's not stopping them, either because his bureaucracy-fu is weak, or because he doesn't form opinions on many issues and delegates to his subordinates. That would also say bad things about him.

[JME2]

I think Obama is doing the best he can in difficult circumstances beyond his control. That having been said, I won't deny I'm somewhat disappointed in his presidency and how that sense of optimism and change I felt in November 2008 has diminished.

[[R_H]]

I think its interesting that it seems like the most scathing criticism of Obama is coming from non-Americans.

There was a lot of hype around Obama, especially in Western Europe.

[Liberty]

I think its interesting that it seems like the most scathing criticism of Obama is coming from non-Americans.

There was a lot of hype around Obama, especially in Western Europe.

Interesting. Like what?

Also, I think part of the problem may be that people just expect him to go in and fix everything perfectly, and when he doesn't, we bitch. I mean, being president can't be easy.

[Serafina]

I think its interesting that it seems like the most scathing criticism of Obama is coming from non-Americans.

There was a lot of hype around Obama, especially in Western Europe.

Interesting. Like what?

Him not being Bush.
Really, most of the hype was about him not being a stereotypically arrogant American jerk. Most people did not care or know about US-domestic problems.
Of course, that turned out the be somewhat wrong and people who knew about US domestic politics were not that enthusistic about Obama in the first place - at least according to my observations - the more they knew about the USA, the less they liked Obama. Mostly because he is still on the far right by european standards.

Also, I think part of the problem may be that people just expect him to go in and fix everything perfectly, and when he doesn't, we bitch. I mean, being president can't be easy.

Sure, but he already has some serious fuckups - healthcare and the oil spill.

[Patrick Degan]

The problem with McCain's experience argument was how completely it was undermined by his choice of running-mate —a woman of far less experience in government, whose credentials included the mayorship of some three-horse town and governorship of a state whose entire population doesn't even come up to that of the city of Chicago, and of a frightening degree of arrogance, ignorance, and vindictiveness rolled into one package. This creature being his choice to take over the reins of the presidency in the event of his death or incapacity.