The First Year of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions and Discussions

Obama's withdrawal plan ended up being the same as what everyone else would have endorsed anyway

Problem is, you're presenting this speculation as fact. I'm not so sure, and previous rhetoric (especially regarding McCain) doesn't support this. Do I think that McCain would've been more likely to adopt a withdrawal plan than his campaign rhetoric suggested? Yes. I don't think he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. But it's neither here nor there and pretty much irrelevant. That Obama had a 'completely different' plan is not accurate.

It's was in reference to Ghost's original comment that he trusts Obama more with the withdrawal...I don't know if "more trust" is warranted in such a case.

Take your distrust of Obama on everything and just imagine what it feels like to have the exact opposite opinion, and you'll see how such trust is warranted.

 

But McCain doesn't matter. It would if he was now in the office. Obama's initial campaign pledge wasn't even directed at McCain, it was framed to stand out from, and ultimately beat Hillary Clinton. That's what is important, especially in relation to who forms the administration now.

Take your distrust of Obama on everything and just imagine what it feels like to have the exact opposite opinion, and you'll see how such trust is warranted

Well sure. But this is also why I've been saying for a long time now that Obama is just Bush with a (D) after his name. When this idea was last expressed, (not even by me) quite a few people had conniption fits here in the Senate, when in fact, I'm not sure its that far off the mark.

With Obama fever hopefully out of everyone's system- and the exuberant, but misguided "just vote for Obama and everything will be fine" mentality all but smashed- maybe in 2012, we'll have a decent opposition candidate, or even a solid third party candidate to shake things up, and everyone can move forward.

Presuming of course, that whoever it is, looks good in a suit...

 

I agree that McCain, in this instance, doesn't matter. You brought him up. I was just pointing out that it is hard to know exactly what he would've done.

It would if he was now in the office. Obama's initial campaign pledge wasn't even directed at McCain, it was framed to stand out from, and ultimately beat Hillary Clinton. That's what is important, especially in relation to who forms the administration now.

He did differentiate himself from Clinton. It?s not like he said I?ll immediately remove everyone from Iraq within 24 hours. You have a problem with something he said at the beginning of his campaign, almost two years ago now, that doesn?t 100 percent reconcile with what he?s doing now. This is completely silly, to say the least.

But this is also why I've been saying for a long time now that Obama is just Bush with a (D) after his name. When this idea was last expressed, (not even by me) quite a few people had conniption fits here in the Senate, when in fact, I'm not sure its that far off the mark.

So, for argument?s sake...why are you so bothered by everything Obama does...if Obama is so like Bush? You have supported practically all of Bush?s policies.

Anyway, as my article from the NY Times indicated, there are Democrats unhappy with Obama.

With Obama fever hopefully out of everyone's system- and the exuberant, but misguided "just vote for Obama and everything will be fine" mentality all but smashed- maybe in 2012, we'll have a decent opposition candidate, or even a solid third party candidate to shake things up, and everyone can move forward.

I agree that seven months or so is enough time to make such proclamations and assume that all of those delusional people who voted for Obama will wake up and, well, agree with you. And hopefully there will be a decent opposition candidate...is Joe The Plumber still around?

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/obama-to-joint-session-of-congress-sept-9.htm

This should interesting.

 

Looks like Obama is dropping the public option.

 

What makes you think that?

Obama had the waters tested for dropping the public option for bipartisan support. Three things have happened since then:

1.) The left has come out much harder and much stronger for the public option, with the biggest labor unions refusing to support Democrats who who refuse to support the public option

2.) 2 of the 3 Republicans on the Senate Finance panel have written things like "let's stop Obama-Care", and the White House has finally admitted a bipartisan solution (besides maybe including Olympia Snowe) is looking impossible.

3.) The support for a public option and healthcare reform is now higher than some of the President's reported approval ratings

This leads me to believe President Obama will come out very hard for some very strong Healthcare Reform, and will begin arm-twisting the Senators.

 

I don't think the President is going to push hard for a public option....

 

But he will turn his focus from compromising with the Republicans to uniting the Democrats, so the legislation will probably become much stronger and lean a little more to the left, and makes a public option more likely (even if Obama doesn't call it a must in his joint address). Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Remember, the public insurance option is the left's compromise. Most want Medicare-For-All, and have accepted the public option as a compromise. That's where the Democrats went wrong. They introduced the compromise as their priority, making the possible compromise position now (regional co-operatives) seem very weak. If they had been pushing Medicare-For-All since the election (and maybe the last couple years) and fought hard for it, then we could have introduced the public option at this point as a compromise.

I'm just glad Obama is finally taking charge. Presidents don't usually have joint addresses to Congress, that's usually reserved for visiting heads of state and the State of the Union. The recent exceptions being Bush after 9/11, and President Clinton during his push for healthcare reform.

If the final bill does not include a public option, it will then probably include much stronger legislation in other areas that the left can rally around.

I also wonder if it could instead include a new idea, or a more polished idea than the public option or regional co-opertives, such as a strong Patients' Health Union of America.

 

In today's NYT, he's not dropping it, but the White House privately has conceded that they may eventually have to.

I personally would like to see more in the way of insurance reform. I think eventually the public option will go, with a requirement that children and families be covered as a start (and a way to lower costs).

We'll see what happens, but I stand by my earlier assertion that something will get passed, and he will claim credit for it and call it a victory.

Peace,

V-03

 

Well they could start with insurance reform by making it competitive across state lines.

 

This is stupid:


Critics take aim at Obama?s speech to kids
GOP says he's trying to foist political agenda on students

The President is going to speak on live TV to U.S. schoolchildren, telling them how important it is to stay in school.


Republican parents and critics are throwing a temper tantrum, saying Obama is trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist brainwashing, directly comparing him to Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein, and some want to see the President's speech beforehand to see if it's "appropriate" for the children to hear.



WT*? Why are they treating the President like he is a registered sex offender?

 

Your own article explains why some people are calling it an attempt at "indoctrination":

Be honest here for a moment. If you saw government-sponsored curriculum from a Republican administration advising children to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president", wouldn't that sound a bit like indoctrination to you? Wouldn't that strike you as similar to the sort of things that are commonly done in a dictatorship to encourage the children to support the leader?

If it had been Bush's administration putting out a similar lesson plan (and remember, most of the outrage came before they changed the proposed lesson plans), would you give them the same benefit of the doubt that you are giving the Obama administration? Would you be so critical of the people upset over the proposed lesson plan, or would you be joining them?

Quite frankly, it was stupid and foolish for the Obama administration to put out that lesson plan in the first place. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have recognized the potential fallout from asking students to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

Kimball Kinnison

 

Seeing how Reagan preached taxcuts to childern, Conservatives really don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Be honest here for a moment. If you saw government-sponsored curriculum from a Republican administration advising children to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president", wouldn't that sound a bit like indoctrination to you? Wouldn't that strike you as similar to the sort of things that are commonly done in a dictatorship to encourage the children to support the leader?

If it had been Bush's administration putting out a similar lesson plan (and remember, most of the outrage came before they changed the proposed lesson plans), would you give them the same benefit of the doubt that you are giving the Obama administration? Would you be so critical of the people upset over the proposed lesson plan, or would you be joining them?

Quite frankly, it was stupid and foolish for the Obama administration to put out that lesson plan in the first place. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have recognized the potential fallout from asking students to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."



Help the President... by staying in school. (Also, this was always voluntary. It wasn't some kind of draconian executive order.)

If Bush had done a similar message, not a political one, that told kids to stay in school, I would have applauded him on that: he would have gone up 1% point in approval in my mind. Just like I liked him for trying to help education with "No Child Left Behind," even though that didn't go as planned, I did give him credit for the effort, and the aid we gave to Africa during his administration is a positive highlight in my opinion. When Bush did something right, or something I agreed with, or at least tried, I did give due credit. That didn't happen a lot, but when it did I was happy and wasn't afraid to say it.

You would think telling kids to stay in school would be something completely nonpartisan, but no. I know the real reason behind this outrage, and it's not because the President is giving an address to schoolchildren.

 

KK, you've obviously missed the point here for once.

That drivel you posted after this bit is just pure daftness and false equivocation on your part. No, if GWB had urged kids to get an education I doubt there would be much a problem with it. As it is he never did that. Not only did he not do that he came from a party that doesn't value education. And I say that by looking at the people that are in charge of the GOP and/or their representatives. In no way is he asking students for their support by doing such a thing and I don't even know why this is an issue anyway.

 

What if it was "what can I do to help the: teacher, police, fire fighters, principle, superintendent, governor, Secretary of Energy, etc." Why is it suddenly terrible when the word "President" gets put in there?

 

Not just any President, a democratic president.

 

KK

Quite frankly, it was stupid and foolish for the Obama administration to put out that lesson plan in the first place. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have recognized the potential fallout from asking students to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

I too can't believe Obama would be so stupid and foolish to not recognize how much the GOP would overreact. He only has himself to blame for such statements as "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology" or "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education ? it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Of course the first President Bush did something very similar, and some were critical, although I don't think he was compared to Hussein, the Ayatollah, etcetera.

Anyway, speaking of the media...their coverage of the health care debate has been predictably awful. As usual, they focus on the crazy and the loud. Carnage sells, I guess.

 

Very good op-ed by David Brooks, talking about insurance reform:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html

Here's the proposal he referred to in the article:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/0901_btc.aspx

 

The first President Bush did not spend 20 years at a church where "God Damn America" was preached over the pulpit - nor did he attend a church where 9/11 was described as America's chickens coming home to roost.

The first President Bush did not hire someone along the lines of a 9/11 truther.

Barack Obama did.

 

....your point being?

 

I think his point is that Democrats are evil, evil people and that they should be burned at the stake. If there's a mistranslation, please correct it, but that's what I'm reading into his point.

 

Democrats aren't evil, they just don't have a backbone.

 

Oh, I know. And the GOP's become a party of clown shoes.

 

To be fair, both parties ride around in teeny-tiny cars and have expressions painted on their faces.