23 replies to this topic

[cousin it]

E--He is a Bush clone, and he won't get my vote.

[freedom78]

This is so hard to do, given that we ascribe greater power and both praise and fault to presidents than they have or deserve. He's done some things absolutely right, in my mind. SCHIP and the equal pay laws, early in his term, were on target, as was getting rid of DADT. Anyone who is liberal/socialist/lefty will judge him on healthcare, of course, and it's hard to judge, since it's the biggest change policy and faced much greater opposition than any of the above. I'd give the outcome of this debate a "C" of some sort. There are good points and bad. It's a moderate improvement, but falls well short of what was needed. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, he seeks private ownership solutions rather than the socialism he's accused of and if there's one area where it's crying out for something other than private (or, more specifically, FOR PROFIT) ownership, it's healthcare. In that sense, this policy is a half measure at best. Because the GOP was successful in keeping the public option out of the bill, it will NOT cut costs significantly...in fact, I expect them to rise without a lower cost alternative to private insurance. He also negotiated away the Bush tax cuts on the rich. So, on domestic policy, I'd give him a C. But I'm not sure anyone could have done better, given this political climate. On foreign policy, I'd give him a B+. He's done well with Russia, milled OBL, managed Libya well (bargain price, compared to Iraq, and with a real, immediate, humanitarian necessity), etc. Of course, he'll be judged as they all are on the economy. We VASTLY overestimate the power of presidents to manage an economy. Business profits are high...yet they don't hire. No one can really say he's been bad for business...and mroe accurate statement would be that businesses are generally bad for workers (or certainly, at least, do not have their interests at heart). IF the economy improves and unemployment drops, he might pull into the C range by the election. If not, he may be fucked.

[lynn]

E--He is a Bush clone, and he won't get my vote.

Are you kidding? In what way?!?

I don't follow politics, etc. enough to be fully informed, obviously. And, do any of us ever like the President that the majority supposedly elected? No. Everyone always has complaints. I, personally, like him a lot and think that, overall, he's doing a fantastic job, all things considered. He's a supporter of LGBT issues, the first President I've seen do this. The DADT policy is ended.

There's been healthcare reform, which may not be perfect, but he's helping us move towards that. I personally feel that health care is a human right that all of us should be entitled to.

He was present when Saddam Hussein was brought down, for good or for bad. Focus has been shifted to Afghanistan where, I just thought but what would I know, focus should have been in the first place. Granted, troops are still there.

I think he's a very fair man who gives a shit and cares and is truly trying to represent this country and the issues at large. Cannot be an easy job. I see him as being more of a peaceful man who tries to find the compromise, and is not at all about warfare.

I'd give him an A and would definitely vote for him again. I think he's one of the greatest Presidents we've seen in a hell of a long time.

[cousin it]

E--He is a Bush clone, and he won't get my vote.

Are you kidding? In what way?!?

Education: http://www.washingto...0081303197.html

Foreign policy:

I was going to post a bunch of links, but hell, this covers a lot of it:
Bush 2.0: 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. BushPublished on August 9, 2011 by Nenad · 2 Comments Wes Messamore
The Humble Libertarian
Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:00 CDT300,360http://www.sott.net/image/image/s3/76889/medium/bush_obama.jpg[/img]© Dark PolitiksThe election of President Obama was in no small part, a referendum on the administration of George W. Bush, and his victory was interpreted as a sound rebuke to eight years of open ended warfare, a vast and growing police state, the destruction of civil liberties, disregard for the Constitution, unchecked executive power, lies and broken promises, hypocrisy and arrogance, a lack of transparency in government, out-of-control federal spending, fever-pitch fearmongering, rampant corruption, and some really stupid gaffes. But what have we gotten instead?More of the same. A LOT more of the same. In fact, every negative aspect of the Bush Administration has come back with a vengeance in the presidency of Barack H. Obama. Everything the American people detested so strongly about Bush has not only characterized the presidency of his successor, it’s gotten much worse. Don’t believe me? The following is a list of 100 ways President Obama is just like President Bush. We might as well consider it a third Bush term on steroids, or call Mr. Obama “Bush 2.0.” If you honestly didn’t like Bush, you can’t possibly justify liking Obama, not unless you ignore the facts:Open Ended Warfare

more: http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=8778

[Mr. Roboto]

To me that's like saying a house and a car are the same because they both have windows. Obama's stance on Afghanistan was that he would focus on that country and Pakistan (if needed) to hunt down and kill terrorists. A change from the Bush focus of Iraqi goat farmers and imaginary WMD. As Lynn stated there are enough differences between the two to argue against any Bush II claims.

[freedom78]

There are some valid points there, some of which I too dislike about the President. But a lot of it falls into threecategories: nitpicking about campaign promises (in that sense, Obama is like Bush, who is like Clinton, who is like Bush, who is like Reagan, who is like Carter...and so on), a not-so-humble libertarian bemoaning the fact that Obama is, in fact, NOT a libertarian (as evidenced by his policies and choices) and foreign policy. I'd say about foreign policy that across Presidential administrations (and President's of different parties) foreign policy is almost always the most consistent aspect of American politics. This is, in many ways, no different than the many administrations involved in Vietnam or the Cold War. The President's change, but foreign policy remains steady. It's also safe to say that there is a difference in waging wars you inherit versus starting them yourself. And while they rightly point to Libya, among others, it's hard to equate our actions in Libya with those in Iraq or Afghanistan. That said, there are some worthwhile points as well, but they often highlight how alike the two parties are, rather than just Bush and Obama.

[freedom78]

There are some valid points there, some of which I too dislike about the President. But a lot of it falls into threecategories: nitpicking about campaign promises (in that sense, Obama is like Bush, who is like Clinton, who is like Bush, who is like Reagan, who is like Carter...and so on), a not-so-humble libertarian bemoaning the fact that Obama is, in fact, NOT a libertarian (as evidenced by his policies and choices) and foreign policy. I'd say about foreign policy that across Presidential administrations (and President's of different parties) foreign policy is almost always the most consistent aspect of American politics. This is, in many ways, no different than the many administrations involved in Vietnam or the Cold War. The President's change, but foreign policy remains steady. It's also safe to say that there is a difference in waging wars you inherit versus starting them yourself. And while they rightly point to Libya, among others, it's hard to equate our actions in Libya with those in Iraq or Afghanistan.

That said, there are some worthwhile points as well, but they often highlight how alike the two parties are, rather than just Bush and Obama.

I'll bet your an awesome teacher, Freedom.

Thanks!