You mean democrats jump on republicans and republicans jump on democrats? Lies!Originally Posted by Foolish Mortal
Unfortunately, he's been just as reasonable as he claimed he would be in his campaign. That gave us a half-assed stimulus and half-assed health care reform. The conservative Dems in Congress shoulder alot of the blame, but there's no question that he should have exercised better leadership.
Robert Gibbs was absolutely correct when he was talking about the "Professional Left".
They constantly undermined Obama's message.
Sites that may or may not interest you..
What do you think Obama should have done better? You don't think he is blameless in this do you? Or do you think he has done as best a job as could be done, and that it is outside forces have made have created the air of negativity towards him?
A lot of that's due to the strategic decision from the administration to go with massive omnibus bills for key legislation.
He could have gotten lots of bipartisan support for the most popular aspects of those bills.
Republicans are pretty good at choosing the most electable candidate.
Obama did well in 2008, but it wasn't the slaughter it could have been in the Presidential election (see 1920, 1932 and 1980) especially given all that was wrong in the country, and the blame the party in the White House usually receives for that.
But many of the bills that would've been popular would not have worked without bills that would've been unpopular. This was explained over and over again.
Many aspects of the bill would have worked without the unpopular parts of the bill.
Authorizing the FDA to approve generic versions of biologic drugs and grant biologics manufacturers 12 years of exclusive use before generics can be developed, requiring insurers to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures, prohibiting insurers from dropping policyholders when they get sick and implementing enhanced methods of fraud detection would have worked without any of the other aspects of the bill.
I'm inclined to agree sadly.
I can't help but think of Bill Maher's observation: "I never thought I'd say this, what Obama needs in his personality is a little George Bush."
The Democratic Party is too blame. When the President came to power, change should have started with new House and Senate leaders. With all of their years of experience, they NP and HR still project weakness and ineptitude. Rahm is a reactionary, and I don't think David Axelrod serves him well.
He is the Leader of the Democratic Party and he should be the one in charge, not this strange power sharing arrangement where, 'everyone gets to touch the ball' Government camp thing. [paraphrasing toby zeigler]
I voted for the guy and I'm a conservative and a Republican. And he has done alot of good, but the perception is that he's is weak and doesn't have a plan. Whether that is true or not, perception, more often than not, is reality.
I think his next non-war challenges will be allowing the taxes to return to normal and use this money to pay down the debt, keep the health care bill from being repealed if the Republicans take over, realize the first of two peace dividends to reduce military spending and pay down debt, enforce paygo, and for fuck sake, have a plan for the deficit other than a moratorium on discretionary spending increases three years down the road, that includes the phrase, "except for".
I think he can do the job, he just needs to remember that he's the one calling the plays.
You are starting to believe thr truth.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks