Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

redux
The second part of my post wasn't meant to be directed specifically at you.

I didn't comment on the non national security specific protections because I don't think they are an issue. I'm talking about shitty things that Obama has done.

And there are a lot of people who care about this. Moreso than would justify ASU2003 's casual dismissal.

 

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvk_1p6WYic


I'll let Bill Maher help me out here.

I still doubt all the soccer moms, the guys shopping at Wal-Mart, and the people living paycheck to paycheck care about this story unless it somehow damages the opposite political party.

 

I live paycheck to paycheck and voted for Obama. You can try to marginalize the people who care about this issue all you want. Doing so isn't really a legitimate criticism of the people who care about the issue or of caring about the issue. Every important issue starts out as something that most people don't give a fuck about.

Your position seems to essentially be: everyone already knew everything Snowden leaked, but he's ruined everything by leaking this information that everyone already knew. Plus, nobody cares about this issue anyway, and so who cares about the substantive issues around why allowing the government access to everything we do might be problematic.

 

People care because things are different now. You don't get that? Get with it or fucking move on. Those are your choices. You don't get a middle way; NO ONE DOES. Choose a path and get on with it. Or dog paddle through the next couple of decades. Those are your choices. And at least you have a choice.

 

think of the amount of money that has been diverted into the national-surveillance state, justified by an endless war.
this is allocated separately from the over 40% of federal outlays already pissed away on the military.
qui bono?

 

Most of the suggestions are common sense and I would expect tribal and local leaders to disseminate this sort of info to their citizenry. I would certainly hope that innocent civilians were taking these steps to prevent themselves from being targeted by drones. I see this guide as a good thing, regardless of who it benefits. The drone program is an abomination and if they never manage to kill another human being, I'll be quite thrilled.

So tell me, was the guide actually titled "Al Qaeda's handy 22 step guide on how to avoid drones?'

 

what neo-liberalism has given us:

Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work

sometimes i think the national surveillance state is an instrument of conservative social policy.

 

Only sometimes?

 

But... but... existential threats to OUR WAYEEE OF LIIIIIIIFFFFEEEE!

Did you folks hear that some high up folks in the military have decided that military entitlements (i.e. giving members of the armed forces the things you promised them when you got them to volunteer) are out of hand and are at a high priority for being reduced in light of congress' brilliant sequestration plan? They're apparently spending too much on people, not enough on absurdly expensive machines for killing people.

 

I don't ignore complicity, I have higher expectations of a President, leader, head of an entity or organization.

Look at it in another way. A small number of Tea Party people have leveraged a small amount of political power to put a stop to President Obama's political agenda. Are these people politically brilliant in a manner never seen before? So, if President Obama is not incompetent wouldn't we have to give these Tea Party people more credit? My argument is that the Tea Party people are not politically brilliant, it is the President who has the problem. To DC I do not accept the argument that Congressional rules, the Tea Party is not responsible for, is the reason President Obama's political agenda is stalled.
--- merged: Jul 29, 2013 6:56 PM ---

Many times I have said I am not interested in a focus on trivial matters. My point is that President Obama could learn from some of the things LBJ did. If you want to argue that LBJ/Civil Rights Act/whatever have no applicability to issues face by President Obama because times and circumstances don't precisely match I already concede that point. However, my point is that political conflict is not new and lessons can be learned from history. Either you fail to see the point or you want to argue trivial matters for some reason.

I called my analogy a sports analogy, but the issue in question had nothing to do with sports. It is really about a role model. The connection to sports is trivial.
--- merged: Jul 29, 2013 7:03 PM ---

So is running a marathon, why do people do it? The reward of doing what is difficult is greater than the pain. I would expect you to be obstructionist if you believed you needed to protect your political interests regardless of how frustrating it is. Engaging in this at least shows an interest held by very few. Given the potential consequences of what happens politically I have no understanding of people who ignore this stuff.

P.s - OMG - another boring sports analogy!
--- merged: Jul 29, 2013 7:09 PM ---

No. It requires setting one's ego aside.

Neither of those things are the core issue. We have to first understand what the disagreement is.

If presented with an option that is in your best interest why would you decline it? My job would be to find a solution that is in your best interest without compromising my core convictions. It is always possible.
--- merged: Jul 29, 2013 7:21 PM ---

Careful with you vague labels. I am mostly libertarian regarding social policy and argue that it is the libertarian wing of conservatism that has it right and is more consistent with the intent of the founding fathers and the US Constitution. It is the middle of the road moderates find "big brother" policies most useful to their ideology. At least those on the far left are honest about their views of social fairness and how they want to accomplish it, most others are not.

 

the vote last week on the amash amendment to curtail the national-surveillance state made for curious bedfellows...folk on the "progressive" wing of the democratic party along with some libertarian-type conservatives voting for, more moderates of both voting against. it was strange to think on. then i saw this:

House Members Voting to Continue NSA's Dragnet Surveillance Received Twice as Much From Defense Contractors | MapLight - Money and Politics

which i simply find to be interesting.

 

I don't ignore this stuff. I don't expect people to be obstructionist to protect their political interests. And if they are going to be obstructionist, it better damn well be worth it. The sort of obstruction that is going on now is personality based. It doesn't have to do with policies so much as it does with hamstringing a presidency - regardless of the consequences. Or, like continuing to push a specious comparison between Washington today and Washington 55 years ago in order to point and say 'look what a bad job he's doing.' It's not just obstructionist, it's dishonest.

 

On one level I do have a bias against people who I believe are pseudo-intellectuals (a focus academics, theory with little connection to practical application or experience), like the President is especially as it relates to domestic economic policy, on the other I can respect those who disagree with my point of view and who are honest about what they want to accomplish. If disagreement is in regards to the means and not the ends, I can easily give 100% support to a method or means that I would not have considered.

When faced with disagreement on the ends, I will obstruct. Under this circumstance discussing the means is pointless. The first step is reaching agreement on the ends. This is where President Obama fails. When I brought up LBJ, this is an area where he excelled in my opinion.

Superficially I am sure President Obama wants as many as possible to believe that the opposition he faces is simply due to some personality conflict or bigotry. I can post all day long about specific President Obama policies I disagree with and after it is all said some will conclude that I just don't like the President. Actually, I am sure he is a nice guy and I wouldn't mind playing some basketball with him and afterward going to get an excessively fatty burger, fries and a Coke without our wives!

 

I know how leadership works. If an organization is failing to meet its goals and objectives, we don't fire the organization we fire the leader. We do the same with political leaders. History is full of examples. Examples in all types of governments. A government is a form of an organization. I am an voracious consumer of information on leadership and I know failure at the top when I see it. I also know that in some circumstances even good leaders are held accountable for organizational failure even if the problem is in the organization and not with the leader. You see then the problem is why didn't the leader fix that organizational problem? If the leader is powerless, yes perhaps it is not fair. Who says shit has to be fair?

 

The federal government is in fact three separate organizations by design (executive, legislative, judicial) and to hold one accountable for the failures of the other demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how government works.

Which might explain why Obama's job rating numbers are in the high 40s while Congress is in the high teens, dragged down to this level of by the obstructionists Republicans.
--- merged: Jul 30, 2013 at 7:19 PM ---
One of the most fiscally conservative Republican Senators called out members of his own party on their latest obstructionist strategy - to block raising the debt limit unless the Affordable Care Act is defunded.

 

The US Government does not operate and/or speak as three separate units. Your point of view is not clear to me. Is the President accountable or not? Is the President responsible for his political agenda or not? When the President campaigns and makes promises are we to assume it is simply empty rhetoric or not? What is the point of electing a President?

My interpretation of your posts on this subject is that you will endlessly make excuses for failed Presidential leadership while a Democrat is in office.

 

I must have missed the new federal government reorganization chart that allows the president to hire/fire members members of Congress or reorganize the legislative branch.

It is not me making excuses for the president. It is the overwhelming majority of the American public who blame the Republicans in Congress for the gridlock and obstructionism....unless you believe they all are making excuses for the president.

 

In total, members of Congress are elected by the same people who elect the President. The President's election is national and as a result it is his responsibility to have a national perspective. It is his primary responsibility because in our federal government he is the (and VP) only one given the three branches is elected (hired) in this manner. He has unique responsibilities. If on a national basis we are failing to achieve national goals (ie - economic stability and growth) he is the person most responsible. I don't expect elected official from Texas to go out of their way to do what is best for NC - that is the responsibility of NC elected officials. The President needs to balance the interests of not only TX and NC but all states. He is accountable. Again, I don't understand how you come to your conclusions.

I agree the President was re-elected on the basis as you describe. However, we had grid-lock from 2010 - 2012, it will continue through 2014 and I suspect to 2016. Who is going to fix it? Given those who do not support the President's agenda running out the clock, obstructing is a given. So, again who needs to fix this? I simply say that if Obama wants his election to mean something he might want to lead.

LBJ spoke of a Great Society and got people of both parties to buy into his vision. In hindsight I believe his approach to the war on poverty was the wrong thing to do - however he got people to believe in his vision. He got people to trust his approach. Obama is not selling his vision nor is he establishing trust - his approach is to antagonize - the opposite of what is needed. Even today I read a report in my local paper that Obama is meeting with members of Congress - only Democrats! What is the point? The point certainly not to end gridlock!

 

More LBJ with his super majority Congress, including moderate/liberal Republicans that are now extinct.

There is no point in further discussion.

After all, Ace, your the self-proclaimed expert on leadership and organization and the rest of us are just partisan hacks.