Concerning the 2016 Olympics:

Olympic opposition getting second wind as support in Chicago fades
47 percent of Chicagoans polled favor the bid, but that support had been at 61 percent in February
September 3, 2009

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-olympics-poll-03-sep03,0,7067717.story

And concerning the Fineman piece:

Quote :

"A considerable amount of commentary from both the left and the right has brought attention to the fact that the man is a perpetual campaigner. Quite frankly, that is all he has ever really done and that is about all he is good at politically. He has no legislative chops, he has no deal-making skill, he just gives a good speech."

JCASHFAN

This was one of Fineman's points.

The Limits of Charisma
Mr. President, please stay off TV

Quote :

"There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman. He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation."

Quote :

"Never much of a legislator (and not long a senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major 'reform' bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its 'leadership.' It's not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216210?GT1=43002

Quote :

"but he has also taken on a fairly large number of issues already."

sarijoul

So what? Should Obama get an A for effort? As Fineman pointed out, Obama seems to want credit for simply trying--this is another important point of the piece:

Quote :

"Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies."

9/29/2009 11:37:51 AM

So if he gets his way, he's a tyrant, and if he doesn't, he's incompetent.

Under what circumstance would you not be whining on the internet?

9/29/2009 11:50:38 AM

^if he passed the fairtax for me.

9/29/2009 11:54:36 AM

^^ Were he not in power or the unlikely event of him using his power to reduce the size of the Federal Government. I've said it a number of times I'm a fan of his incompetence, both for its ineffectiveness and for the sheer joy of pointing out the fact that everyone who called him a political lightweight before the election was right.

9/29/2009 11:57:03 AM

He's going to get universal healthcare; that's the work of a lightweight?

9/29/2009 12:01:20 PM

I hope not, but the fact that it has been this difficult with congressional majorities the size that he has have the marks of an amateur all over it.

He has had no hand in crafting the bills. Like the Newsweek article said, he pretty much told congress to give him a bill and he would sign it. Where are Obama's fingerprints in this? He can't even come into agreement with a speaker of the house of his own party.


This is about congress enhancing it's power to distribute favors, this isn't about Barack Obama working hard with members of congress to establish his vision for health care.



Interestingly enough, the Arizona legislature has already passed legislation allowing it's voters to opt out of any national health care program. State citizens will have to vote for it in 2010. Similar legislation has been introduced in Florida, Michigan, and Ohio with Georgia and Louisiana discussing it. Now, we'll have to wait and see what comes of this, but the Bacus bill is an abortion waiting to happen.

9/29/2009 12:09:38 PM

^^^ if he were not in power, it would have been McCain/Palin, who would also be doing nothing to reduce the size of the Federal Government, more than likely. Are you saying that you are content with a life of perpetual bitching?

Quote :

"I hope not, but the fact that it has been this difficult with congressional majorities the size that he has have the marks of an amateur all over it."

It doesn't show amateur, unless it's amateur to try and push for bi-partisan acceptance, which was one of the things he talked about during his campaigning.

And congress is supposed to write the bills, that's part of their job.


[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 12:10:16 PM

As long as people in DC are perpetually fucking up, I'm going to perpetually bitch and actively work to defeat them in any peaceful means necessary. If this means a life of perpetual bitching, so be it. For the record, I'd be bitching about McCain though probably for different reasons. I've certainly never been friendly to Sarah Palin on here.


I realize politics is not a binary game and there are many levels of nuances. I'll support people I generally oppose if they support what I believe in. I'll oppose people I generally support if they oppose what I believe in. But I can assure you, congressmen and women don't need cheerleaders, they have plenty of those. What they need are people interested in calling them to task for their incompetence, criminal activity, or legislative excesses.

9/29/2009 12:11:46 PM

The Clinton administration writing its own bill is one of the main reasons it failed.

9/29/2009 12:15:04 PM

^^ it seems like it would be more productive to adapt the existing framework to your views as closely as possible, instead of just continually rejecting things. There are 300 million people in this country, and your view is not the best for all of them.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 12:15:17 PM

I don't continuously reject things. I just happen to reject the concept of consolidation of power in Washington and the abandonment of the concept of personal liberty.


The entire thrust of this current administration / congress is based upon the philosophical outlook that government is better able to determine what we as individuals need or should have than the individuals themselves. I find that view of of the world so fundamentally flawed that I'm going to oppose it.


To bodies cannot occupy one space. I cannot adapt to a framework that directly conflicts with my perception of the world. I realize everyone holds their own opinions, and I'm not arguing that others should be suppressed, but you ask me why I continue to reject this administration and this congress and that is why. This is why I rejected much of the last administration and previous congresses.

Poor analogy, but I'm not going to become a UNC fan simply because they win more games when I am fundamentally an NCSU fan. I'm open to varying ways of defeating UNC in athletic competition, and I realize that the rules of the game are the rules of the game, but I'm not changing just to be on the victorious side.

9/29/2009 12:23:36 PM

Quote :

"Never much of a legislator (and not long a senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major 'reform' bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its 'leadership.' It's not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216210?GT1=43002



+



+



=

What's the holdup?

9/29/2009 12:23:48 PM

Maybe democrats/liberals aren't the lemming-like lump of thought that republicans are?

9/29/2009 12:25:11 PM

yep, that's it

they're just better people

9/29/2009 12:27:08 PM

Quote :

"if he were not in power, it would have been McCain/Palin, who would also be doing nothing to reduce the size of the Federal Government, more than likely"

Chances are they wouldn't INCREASE the size though...or if they did not on this level. (though I'm not arguing that makes it okay).

Quote :

"It doesn't show amateur, unless it's amateur to try and push for bi-partisan acceptance, which was one of the things he talked about during his campaigning."

Yeah he talked about it during his campaign...and that's about it.

9/29/2009 12:28:53 PM

Quote :

"Democrats aren't the lemming-like lump of thought that Republicans are."

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 12:34:04 PM

It's astonishing the contortions that some of you will twist yourselves into to defend the Democrats' failings and to bash the Republicans.

9/29/2009 12:37:32 PM

Do you deny that Republicans are almost entirely all lockstep with daily marching orders and talking points?

9/29/2009 12:39:54 PM

^ I'm not a Republican, but, yes, I deny it. If the Republicans were as coordinated as you suggest, they'd be gaining more ground as Obama's popularity declines.

9/29/2009 12:44:13 PM

They are. That's why this healthcare debacle is such a..... debacle.

9/29/2009 12:48:54 PM

^ What are you babbling about? In case you haven't heard, the Democrats control the White House, the US House, and the US Senate. In addition, the Democrats have loudly proclaimed on several occasions that they have the votes to pass health-care reform.

If the Democrats' plan is so great and everybody loves it, what are they waiting for? What?!

9/29/2009 12:53:41 PM

so are they rushing the legislation or is it the slow work of an incompetent party? you need to get your stories straight.

9/29/2009 12:55:42 PM

Quote :

""It doesn't show amateur, unless it's amateur to try and push for bi-partisan acceptance, which was one of the things he talked about during his campaigning." Yeah he talked about it during his campaign...and that's about it."

lol

So JCASHFAN is saying that Obama has been doing it, and you're saying he HASN'T been doing it?


^^ So representatives always unfailingly vote the same way? Is this how it works? Is this how you want it to work? lol

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 12:55:54 PM

Quote :

"If the Democrats' plan is so great and everybody loves it, what are they waiting for? What?!"

Quote :

"Democrats aren't the lemming-like lump of thought that Republicans are."

9/29/2009 1:00:59 PM

^^^ and ^^ You idiots are just running in circles with your arguments and you know it. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats believed that they were elected on a mandate to "change" things like health care as we know it.

Another fact is that the Democrats control the White House, the US House, and the US Senate. If the Democrats can't move their agenda forward, they get the blame--that's just part of the deal. You can't--with any credibility--blame the Republicans for the Democrats' failings. This is just the same old tired bullshit that many on the left have been spewing for years--it's reflexive now. Furthermore, you certainly can't blame the Republicans when they don't even have a clear leader and those in Congress can't hit their ass with both hands right now.

^ But I thought health-care reform was a "crisis," right? Posthaste, comrades!

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 1:08:00 PM

^ pundits have been saying for years that the Republicans are more unified than the Democrats, do you think anything has changed regarding this just because Obama got elected?

9/29/2009 1:09:11 PM

^^who is blaming the republicans? if there is anyone to blame it is beholden blue dogs.

i'm not excusing them for outright lying, btw. most of the memes they've been spreading have been disingenuous at best. but they aren't voting for shit anyway. and they've basically said as much.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 1:09:44 PM

Quote :

"So JCASHFAN is saying that Obama has been doing it"

What words are you trying to put in my mouth?

Quote :

"pundits have been saying for years that the Republicans are more unified than the Democrats"

were, they are hardly unified now. Granted, there is an ever-shrinking core of hard-core Palinesque conservatives but there is no clear leader to the party and the negative dive in Obama's and congress' approval ratings haven't seen a concurrent rise in the Republican Party's popularity. In short, the GOP is fucked up politically, no matter what you think of their ideology.

Quote :

"if there is anyone to blame it is beholden blue dogs."

beholden to whom? All politicians are beholden to someone and it is only the voters once every election cycle.

9/29/2009 1:12:28 PM

^^^ and ^^ You two are dumb. Who is the next Republican candidate for president? Who's leading the Republicans in Congress? Quick--don't look it up.

And "who is blaming the Republicans"?

Obama Criticizes Republicans for Blocking Health Care Bill
In an interview with CBS' '60 Minutes,' Obama says Republican who are opposing the overhaul of the nation's health care system are doing it for political gain.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/13/obama-criticizes-republicans-blocking-health-care/

9/29/2009 1:19:46 PM

Quote :

"He has had no hand in crafting the bills. Like the Newsweek article said, he pretty much told congress to give him a bill and he would sign it. Where are Obama's fingerprints in this? He can't even come into agreement with a speaker of the house of his own party."

Are you people really this fucking dense? If King Obama could wave his scepter and magically enact health care reform, he would have done it by now. But it doesn't work that way. There is a legislative process that must be followed. All we've witnessed the past few months is that process. And guess what? It's gone more or less exactly how the White House planned. Here is an article from JULY 20 where Obama explains exactly whats going to happen.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/barack_obama_on_health-care_re.html

There it is, there is your fucking plan, outlined OVER 2 MONTHS AGO. It's come farther than any attempt to pass health care reform before it. If that makes Obama a "light weight", then I guess Bill and Hillary were total fucking amateurs at this.

The goal from day one has been to get a bill to what is essentially the congressional cutting room floor, and that's when the White House will step in to ensure the bill has everything they want. Absolutely it could still fail miserably, but so far everything has gone has planned. You may not agree with the content of the bill, but arguing that Obama completely misunderstood what it would take to get it passed is nothing short of retarded.

9/29/2009 1:22:13 PM

^^ What Obama says there is true. The Republicans are opposing any Democratic bill.

See, the argument is like this. Let's say that "1" designates complete private healthcare with no government intervention. "10" designates complete government control with no private healthcare.

The Democrats are saying, "Look, some of us want 8, and some of us want 3. We need to argue about which is best." Some of them want more government control, some want a little, and some don't want any. They have to argue about it and that takes time.

The Republicans are saying, "NO NO NO NO NO WAHHHHHHHHH IF ITS ANYTHING BUT 1 WE WONT VOTE FOR IT SOCIALISSSSSSSSSTS!" All of them are saying this because they all always follow the same lockstep orders from the RNC. They have a unified message.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 1:24:15 PM

^ Are you stupid? The DEMOCRATS are in control, dumbass!!!1

And there's this:

Pelosi and Reid Tell President: We Have the Votes; President Wants Bill Passed Soon
September 08, 2009

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/pelosi-and-reid-tell-president-we-have-the-votes-president-wants-bill-passed-soon.html

So, are Pelosi and Reid lying? Does the Republican minority actually run things?

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : STFU. ]

9/29/2009 1:28:25 PM

^^^ That isn't a plan, that is a sound bite. That is a vague concept of what he wants, not a detailed policy outline. The entire article, including the BHO quote, couldn't fill up a 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper.


The guy is a policy lightweight. Whether or not he is a good president is up for debate but the fact that he is a legislative novice really isn't. I don't think you'll find many serious political followers who won't, at least off the record, agree with that assessment.


^^ Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership say that the bill must include a public option. The GOP opposes a public option. Perhaps that is a unifying element across all bills.

Again, you're assuming Democratic politicians aren't angling for power through the bill. They are just as much as the GOP is and people who oppose it, such as myself, are fully aware of the fact that once anything makes it onto the books, the repeal is near impossible. The GOP is as full of morons as the Democratic party. At the moment, I find them to be useful morons.

9/29/2009 1:31:01 PM

Quote :

"The guy is a policy lightweight."

are. you. fucking. kidding?

he's the closest thing we've had to a wonk as president in decades.

9/29/2009 1:34:29 PM

say what? Clinton was a wonk. Obama is not. He is a big picture guy, but DC is a town where what happens in the weeds counts. He isn't getting in the weeds.


Again, this is fine by me, but it is hurting the Democratic agenda.

9/29/2009 1:37:48 PM

Quote :

"Are you stupid? The DEMOCRATS are in control, dumbass!!!1"

Yes, but they don't all agree on how the bill should be. I think that is the major point that is making that whoosh sound you're hearing above you right now.

9/29/2009 1:41:45 PM

^^where do you get this idea from?

9/29/2009 1:44:59 PM

Quote :

"That isn't a plan, that is a sound bite. That is a vague concept of what he wants, not a detailed policy outline. The entire article, including the BHO quote, couldn't fill up a 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper."

What's your fucking point then? Is it the president's job to write legislative policy now? Are you Dick Cheney? Obama has a plan to get health care reform passed. It's been the plan since day one, and nothing has changed. It doesn't make any difference if it's 1000 pages long or written on a post-it note. If it works, it works. That's all that matters. What part of this do you not understand?

9/29/2009 2:06:16 PM

Quote :

"Is it the president's job to write legislative policy now? "

It's never been the President's job to write legislation BUT if he were smart, he would've had at least the bones of legislation crafted before he went to the Congress with a mandate on passing healthcare reform. He did largely leave it to Pelosi and Reid to just figure it out and without concise legislative leadership from the President on this, they went off and did whatever the fuck they wanted.

I like Obama, but he botched this healthcare thing all to hell. The dems will be lucky to get any kind of reform that they wanted at this point.

9/29/2009 2:09:22 PM

Quote :

"Obama has a plan to get health care reform passed. It's been the plan since day one, and nothing has changed. It doesn't make any difference if it's 1000 pages long or written on a post-it note. If it works, it works. That's all that matters. What part of this do you not understand?"

What exactly his plan is for a start. I mean aside from sitting around the letting congress fuck it all up and then getting on TV and saying "Well, that wasn't part of my plan" while he signs it into law. Obama took his play book right out of the republican camp. Be as vague and non specific as possible about everything, all while admonishing that "something" must be done for the <insert impoverished, hungry or otherwise "oppressed" group of people>, and then disclaim ever having said or implied any support for any "something" which gets negative response.

9/29/2009 2:20:39 PM

when was the last time a republican president left a bill up to congress to debate?

9/29/2009 2:23:50 PM

How about instead of saying, well a Republican did this, or when was the last time that Republican did x, y or z, we decide that holding our elected officials (democrat or republican) accountable for their actions or inactions is the responsible thing to do.

Comparing Obama to Bush constantly is not going to get anyone anywhere.



disclaimer - i'm a democrat, i hated bush and i voted for Obama. but the whiney back and forth is ridiculous, stupid, juvenile and isn't going to accomplish jack shit.

/rant

9/29/2009 2:28:07 PM

i'm just calling bullshit on saying that obama's health care reform legislative strategy is straight out of the republican playbook. i really don't see that at all.

9/29/2009 2:35:51 PM

Quote :

"If it works, it works."

At the moment, it isn't working, that is my point. Despite a "super-majority" in congress this is taking up massive amounts of political capital, distracting from the rest of his agenda. Even if he gets the bill passed, (I hope it does not) the implementation was botched.


^ what strategy playbook are you talking about? that is more of a universal political playbook.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM. Reason : right]

9/29/2009 2:40:02 PM

Quote :

"i'm just calling bullshit on saying that obama's health care reform legislative strategy is straight out of the republican playbook. i really don't see that at all."

i don't think there was a playbook on this one...

9/29/2009 2:46:14 PM

either way. the comment of 1337 b4k4 was baseless.

9/29/2009 2:48:59 PM

The Dems can't agree and the Republicans agree to always disagree with Dems. Obama put his faith in losers. This is his failure.

9/29/2009 3:11:51 PM

i don't know what else you would have him do. i think that if/when health care legislation passes it will be easier for many to swallow since it has been debated extensively on the floor of the congress and around the nation.

9/29/2009 3:26:43 PM

I wasn't sure if this belongs in this thread or the Iran thread. As you can see I picked this thread.

Quote :

"French Atomic Pique Sarkozy unloads on Obama's 'virtual' disarmament reality. President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement. Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion. President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy. Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions. "We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama. "We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . . "I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions." We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are."

From today's WSJ.

9/29/2009 4:05:50 PM

Quote :

"i think that if/when health care legislation passes it will be easier for many to swallow since it has been debated extensively on the floor of the congress and around the nation."

I doubt it. Almost nobody has budged in their stance and, if anything, the health care proposals have lost approval, not gained it. I suspect it will be viewed by many tax-paying voters as a victory over them, not for them.

9/29/2009 4:47:53 PM