Obama: The Weak President

[Anonymous]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/09/geithners-insubordination-makes-obama-look-weak/42570/

[Anonymous]

I subscribe to the theory that it's not weakness --- Obamam's inaction on the progessive agenda (or anything that goes against banks and businesses) is completely intentional. We thought we elected a progressive Democrat, but actually we elected a moderate Republican who is subservient to the top 1%, just like W. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I subscribe to the theory that it's not weakness --- Obamam's inaction on the progessive agenda (or anything that goes against banks and businesses) is completely intentional. We thought we elected a progressive Democrat, but actually we elected a moderate Republican who is subservient to the top 1%, just like W. Sigh.

Please. Stop. It. You're not convincing us. He asked his secretary of Treasury to Nationalize the banks. That's not a moderate republican speaking. He's weak. His own cabinet ignores him.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I subscribe to the theory that it's not weakness --- Obamam's inaction on the progessive agenda (or anything that goes against banks and businesses) is completely intentional. We thought we elected a progressive Democrat, but actually we elected a moderate Republican who is subservient to the top 1%, just like W. Sigh.

Please. Stop. It. You're not convincing us. He asked his secretary of Treasury to Nationalize the banks. That's not a moderate republican speaking. He's weak. His own cabinet ignores him.

A true progressive wouldn't have appointed Geither in the first place. I agree with the theory that Obama is implementing exactly the policies he desires. If he didn't have the Republican threat to use as an excuse, he would have to invent it.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:Please. Stop. It. You're not convincing us. He asked his secretary of Treasury to Nationalize the banks. That's not a moderate republican speaking. He's weak. His own cabinet ignores him.

I saw an article about restructuring Citibank. Is that what you are talking about, or did he really want to "nationalize the banks"?

[Anonymous]

So you're saying the country yearns for a "strong" leader like Perry?

"Veterans of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to Perry recalled being stunned at the way attacks bounced off the governor in a strongly conservative state gripped by tea party fever. Multiple former Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man – Cameron Todd Willingham – and got this response from a primary voter: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.”"

[TheManWithAUsername]

The fool/knave on Obama is tough. At the moment, I'm favoring the idea that he has no principles, but just wants to be important to the forging of agreements. The beer summit would illustrate that perfectly. Of course, he's failed at that too.

[Anonymous]

Obama is going to get most of what he wants. The only thing he may not get is that which is beyond the control of a President: low unemployment. No one wants to say it, but government has only two roles to play in a recession: It can cause them, and it can take a little bit of the sting off of them. That's it. But he'll get most of the rest of his agenda.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:No one wants to say it, but government has only two roles to play in a recession: It can cause them, and it can take a little bit of the sting off of them. That's it.

I think I've seen you post that here before. Do you mean that literally, or do you mean that it's essentially impossible that our government would do enough to make a difference?

Imagine our country, but with no real gov't debt and the tax code of the 70s. A major recession hits, and we borrow a few trillion over a few years, which is devoted to jobs programs for lower skilled workers and to unemployment benefits. For example, right now for less than $3 trillion we could employ every one of the country's 14 million unemployed at $50k for 3 years. I think that would do a lot more than ease the sting.

[jsteele]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. Stop. It. You're not convincing us. He asked his secretary of Treasury to Nationalize the banks. That's not a moderate republican speaking. He's weak. His own cabinet ignores him.

I saw an article about restructuring Citibank. Is that what you are talking about, or did he really want to "nationalize the banks"?

First and foremost, the request from Obama was to "consider" the option. Obama didn't tell anyone to nationalize a bank. Furthermore, the word "nationalize" is not accurate in the sense that Obama didn't plan for the government to take over and begin operating the bank. Rather, the goal was to close down the bank in a sensible manner. The government would take over the bank in order to close it down. But, again, Geither was asked to "consider", not implement, this idea. The OP totally misrepresented this story.

While I'm on the topic of things being misrepresented, I am troubled by the hammering Michelle Bachmann is taking regarding her statement about the HPV vaccine. Bachmann did not say that she believes the vaccine causes mental retardation. She said that a mother told her that her daughter suffered mental retardation after taking the vaccine. I can understand bashing Bachmann for not knowing there is unlikely to be a connection between those two things, but Bachmann did not say that she believes there is a connection. Focusing on Bachmann shifts attention from Perry's crony capitalist ties that led to his executive order. That's a more important story.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:The fool/knave on Obama is tough. At the moment, I'm favoring the idea that he has no principles, but just wants to be important to the forging of agreements. The beer summit would illustrate that perfectly. Of course, he's failed at that too.

From your perspective, I'd vote fool. I think his heart is very left, but he has limited ability to execute. This is, after all, his first real job.

As a conservative, I'm actually starting to think we're lucky Obama proceeded so far, so fast, because he just wasn't ready for prime time. If he'd waited another eight or so years, he would have been a lot more effective in advancing his preferred policies. I think Obama is actually a pretty smart guy, but woefully underprepared and it is really showing. A couple of terms in the Senate learning how things work in Washington and he would have been really dangerous.

[Anonymous]

I really wish Obama were more progressive, but I find it sad that politics is in such a state that a desire to compromise and represent the middle ground means a leader is weak.

[Anonymous]

If you are a republican why would you compromise? The republican have hurt the country with their actions but they are winning. Why change? When they regain power, the remaining democrats will work with them. This leads one to the conclusion that the country is ungovernable with the current democratic leadership.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:The fool/knave on Obama is tough. At the moment, I'm favoring the idea that he has no principles, but just wants to be important to the forging of agreements. The beer summit would illustrate that perfectly. Of course, he's failed at that too.

From your perspective, I'd vote fool. I think his heart is very left, but he has limited ability to execute. This is, after all, his first real job.

As a conservative, I'm actually starting to think we're lucky Obama proceeded so far, so fast, because he just wasn't ready for prime time. If he'd waited another eight or so years, he would have been a lot more effective in advancing his preferred policies. I think Obama is actually a pretty smart guy, but woefully underprepared and it is really showing. A couple of terms in the Senate learning how things work in Washington and he would have been really dangerous.

To be clear, I don't doubt that he's very smart. If it's "fool," it's from inexperience, arrogance, etc. You may be right that you're lucky you caught him young. His willingness to leave all the leading* to the senate has by itself been devastating.

* Good thing this is text; no way I could have gotten through saying that with a straight face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama is going to get most of what he wants. The only thing he may not get is that which is beyond the control of a President: low unemployment. No one wants to say it, but government has only two roles to play in a recession: It can cause them, and it can take a little bit of the sting off of them. That's it. But he'll get most of the rest of his agenda.

If unemployment is the same this time next year, he isn't going to have a 2nd term. His jobs program is just another form of the emperor and his new clothes.