On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote: The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention.
Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood?
I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections
Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote: The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention.
Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood?
I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections
Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
The Senate has become a place where you need 60 votes to do anything nowadays, even routine federal confirmations. There are hundreds of appointments that are being held up, for minor posts like Assistant Undersecretaries, because the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster aren't there. The GOP has lock-step blocked every major piece of legislation just because it would hurt the Democrats and Obama's image.
What i dont get is why the blocking by the Republicans isnt a center part of the campaign. The fact a party is willfully destroying this country because they didnt get there president seems utterly damning to me. Over here it would have destroyed them.
On September 21 2012 23:50 Gorsameth wrote: What i dont get is why the blocking by the Republicans isnt a center part of the campaign. The fact a party is willfully destroying this country because they didnt get there president seems utterly damning to me. Over here it would have destroyed them.
average people overestimate the power of the president.
and why shouldn't they? the last 3 or so (20 years) have pretty much ignored congress if they could find a way to. executive acts, signing statements, etc.
On September 21 2012 23:50 Gorsameth wrote: What i dont get is why the blocking by the Republicans isnt a center part of the campaign. The fact a party is willfully destroying this country because they didnt get there president seems utterly damning to me. Over here it would have destroyed them.
average people overestimate the power of the president.
and why shouldn't they? the last 3 or so (20 years) have pretty much ignored congress if they could find a way to. executive acts, signing statements, etc.
When its your job to lead the country and some people are trying to make it utterly and i mean utterly impossible shouldnt the right thing to do be to go around them to help your country?
Ill just give an example we had in the Netherlands. Our goverment got into a situation where they didnt have the majority vote (which forces new elections so the country is manageble) but this happends shortly before we were to finish the 2012 budget. So the opposition joined with the ruling parties to come up with a budget that would be enough to keep the country going and solved it in just a few days.
I dont see the Republican party doing that if they can get away with it.
On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote: The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention.
Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood?
I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections
Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
Clinton got a lot done after he began working with Republicans after his party was trounced in 1994. Obama has made no such adjustment after his trouncing in 2010.
On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote: The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention.
Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood?
I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections
Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
Clinton got a lot done after he began working with Republicans after his party was trounced in 1994. Obama has made no such adjustment after his trouncing in 2010.
Did the Republicans at the time stated before they did anything that they would do everything in there power to make Clinton a 1 term president?
Say what you want but the Republican party is destroying your country because they are jealous that a black man got the presidency instead of them instead of setting aside there hate and trying to save you from a world wide depression.
On September 21 2012 09:43 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
Clinton got a lot done after he began working with Republicans after his party was trounced in 1994. Obama has made no such adjustment after his trouncing in 2010.
Did the Republicans at the time stated before they did anything that they would do everything in there power to make Clinton a 1 term president?
Say what you want but the Republican party is destroying your country because they are jealous that a black man got the presidency instead of them instead of setting aside there hate and trying to save you from a world wide depression.
That was the Newt era when all this started. So yeah, it was the same attitude. They even impeached him.
And Pelosi was just as bad during the Bush era. This isn't a one sided thing.
On September 21 2012 23:50 Gorsameth wrote: What i dont get is why the blocking by the Republicans isnt a center part of the campaign. The fact a party is willfully destroying this country because they didnt get there president seems utterly damning to me. Over here it would have destroyed them.
average people overestimate the power of the president.
and why shouldn't they? the last 3 or so (20 years) have pretty much ignored congress if they could find a way to. executive acts, signing statements, etc.
When its your job to lead the country and some people are trying to make it utterly and i mean utterly impossible shouldnt the right thing to do be to go around them to help your country?
Ill just give an example we had in the Netherlands. Our goverment got into a situation where they didnt have the majority vote (which forces new elections so the country is manageble) but this happends shortly before we were to finish the 2012 budget. So the opposition joined with the ruling parties to come up with a budget that would be enough to keep the country going and solved it in just a few days.
I dont see the Republican party doing that if they can get away with it.
You missed my point. When presidents routinely go around congress when they shouldn't, they take power. when they take power, people see this. people then hold the president to a higher standard of "getting things done" and giving him the blame when he fails. I was just explaining the rationale for why people expect a president to get shit done rather than congress.
On September 21 2012 23:50 Gorsameth wrote: What i dont get is why the blocking by the Republicans isnt a center part of the campaign. The fact a party is willfully destroying this country because they didnt get there president seems utterly damning to me. Over here it would have destroyed them.
average people overestimate the power of the president.
and why shouldn't they? the last 3 or so (20 years) have pretty much ignored congress if they could find a way to. executive acts, signing statements, etc.
When its your job to lead the country and some people are trying to make it utterly and i mean utterly impossible shouldnt the right thing to do be to go around them to help your country?
Ill just give an example we had in the Netherlands. Our goverment got into a situation where they didnt have the majority vote (which forces new elections so the country is manageble) but this happends shortly before we were to finish the 2012 budget. So the opposition joined with the ruling parties to come up with a budget that would be enough to keep the country going and solved it in just a few days.
I dont see the Republican party doing that if they can get away with it.
You missed my point. When presidents routinely go around congress when they shouldn't, they take power. when they take power, people see this. people then hold the president to a higher standard of "getting things done" and giving him the blame when he fails. I was just explaining the rationale for why people expect a president to get shit done rather than congress.
Guess i miss understood you then, your right that it indeed shows that image. And i guess its not good for a president to tell the people he doesnt actualy do much when you get down to it :p
As for Clinton. yes they impeached him but imo there is a difference between impeaching someone over an affair and sacrificing part of your country to make him look bad.
On September 21 2012 11:21 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
Clinton got a lot done after he began working with Republicans after his party was trounced in 1994. Obama has made no such adjustment after his trouncing in 2010.
Did the Republicans at the time stated before they did anything that they would do everything in there power to make Clinton a 1 term president?
Say what you want but the Republican party is destroying your country because they are jealous that a black man got the presidency instead of them instead of setting aside there hate and trying to save you from a world wide depression.
That was the Newt era when all this started. So yeah, it was the same attitude. They even impeached him.
And Pelosi was just as bad during the Bush era. This isn't a one sided thing.
The dramatic drop in national confidence in congress that basically came right alongside Obama's presidency suggests differently. Along with the explicit statements of obstruction offered forth by a wide variety of Republican leaders once Obama was elected.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
Clinton got a lot done after he began working with Republicans after his party was trounced in 1994. Obama has made no such adjustment after his trouncing in 2010.
Did the Republicans at the time stated before they did anything that they would do everything in there power to make Clinton a 1 term president?
Say what you want but the Republican party is destroying your country because they are jealous that a black man got the presidency instead of them instead of setting aside there hate and trying to save you from a world wide depression.
That was the Newt era when all this started. So yeah, it was the same attitude. They even impeached him.
And Pelosi was just as bad during the Bush era. This isn't a one sided thing.
The dramatic drop in national confidence in congress that basically came right alongside Obama's presidency suggests differently. Along with the explicit statements of obstruction offered forth by a wide variety of Republican leaders once Obama was elected.
Just because people know about it now doesn't mean the strategy wasn't around back then.
On September 21 2012 11:21 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
Clinton got a lot done after he began working with Republicans after his party was trounced in 1994. Obama has made no such adjustment after his trouncing in 2010.
Did the Republicans at the time stated before they did anything that they would do everything in there power to make Clinton a 1 term president?
Say what you want but the Republican party is destroying your country because they are jealous that a black man got the presidency instead of them instead of setting aside there hate and trying to save you from a world wide depression.
That was the Newt era when all this started. So yeah, it was the same attitude. They even impeached him.
And Pelosi was just as bad during the Bush era. This isn't a one sided thing.
The "Contract with America" was nothing in comparison to the Tea Party vitriol we've seen, plus they actually had real policy agendas to go along with their stonewalling. Senators and congressmen did not say "You lie!" to the president on the floor of Congress and Clinton actually had goals he could compromise on. What goals does the current Republican congress have that Obama can compromise with them on?
Cutting taxes and...cutting taxes? And cutting taxes some more? "Cutting wasteful government spending" by doing...they've never explained?
Why Investors May Get a Flood of One-Time Dividends Soon Published: Friday, 21 Sep 2012 By: John Melloy
Corporations will issue a deluge of special dividends during the next three months because of the threat of higher tax rates next year, making 2012 a record period for the one-time payouts, according to Goldman Sachs and investors.
“A well capitalized corporate America, flush with cash, and a potential shift, regardless of party, in the tax rate higher in 2013 augur a wave of special dividend announcements,” said Robert Boroujerdi of Goldman Sachs, in a note to clients Friday. “Combining the year-to-date special dividend announcements with the traditional 4Q trend, we expect 2012 to set a record.”
Goldman points out that the 15 percent tax rate set to expire at the end of this year could more than double for many investors if President Obama wins a second term and his tax proposals are enacted as a resolution to the so-called fiscal cliff.
Mitt Romney proposes keeping rates at the current 15 percent for everyone, but under one of the president’s proposals, the rate will leap up to 39.6 percent for the highest income earners, according to Goldman.
Under another of the president’s proposals that rate could be as high as 43.4 percent when one includes a 3.8 percent tax on “unearned income” for those with a gross income above $250,000 a year.
Why Investors May Get a Flood of One-Time Dividends Soon Published: Friday, 21 Sep 2012 By: John Melloy
Corporations will issue a deluge of special dividends during the next three months because of the threat of higher tax rates next year, making 2012 a record period for the one-time payouts, according to Goldman Sachs and investors.
“A well capitalized corporate America, flush with cash, and a potential shift, regardless of party, in the tax rate higher in 2013 augur a wave of special dividend announcements,” said Robert Boroujerdi of Goldman Sachs, in a note to clients Friday. “Combining the year-to-date special dividend announcements with the traditional 4Q trend, we expect 2012 to set a record.”
Goldman points out that the 15 percent tax rate set to expire at the end of this year could more than double for many investors if President Obama wins a second term and his tax proposals are enacted as a resolution to the so-called fiscal cliff.
Mitt Romney proposes keeping rates at the current 15 percent for everyone, but under one of the president’s proposals, the rate will leap up to 39.6 percent for the highest income earners, according to Goldman.
Under another of the president’s proposals that rate could be as high as 43.4 percent when one includes a 3.8 percent tax on “unearned income” for those with a gross income above $250,000 a year.
You mean "Change the tax code and the richest 1% of America will greedily chide you for assaulting their wealth via threats of offshoring and commercial emmigration, both of which already happen."
On September 21 2012 11:21 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
I didn't say he was a master at governing. I don't think you can deny, though, that he's skilled at winning the horse races. Aside from the obvious fact that he's at an inherent disadvantage due to a lot of racist voters, this is also a guy who basically came out of nowhere in 2004 and somehow managed to get elected by a solid margin in 2008.
I think that's an accurate characterization. Campaign Obama is a thing of beauty. President Obama, however, is pathetically weak when it comes to negotiations and wrangling votes.
I will be the first to admit that Obama hasn't been the greatest, but lets be real for a second here.
-Republicans have explicitly stated multiple times since he was elected that their only goal is to make sure he isn't re-elected. -The country is more partisan than it has been for decades and possibly all of American history in terms of ideology and voting. -Republicans have explicitly not cooperated for years. Shit, they almost refused to raise the debt ceiling, and any economist can tell you how incredibly childish and irresponsible that entire fiasco was by Republicans.
Even if he hasn't gotten everything done, lets not even try to pretend for one second that any other president in either of our lifetimes has had to face the opposition that Obama has in this country when it comes to getting things done.
You raise a good point. The president can't do shit if congress refuses to cooperate. Everyone pays so much attention to the president, but it's congress and the senate that do the most. The president just decides whether he wants to veto a bill or not.
Clinton got a lot done after he began working with Republicans after his party was trounced in 1994. Obama has made no such adjustment after his trouncing in 2010.
Did the Republicans at the time stated before they did anything that they would do everything in there power to make Clinton a 1 term president?
Say what you want but the Republican party is destroying your country because they are jealous that a black man got the presidency instead of them instead of setting aside there hate and trying to save you from a world wide depression.
That was the Newt era when all this started. So yeah, it was the same attitude. They even impeached him.
And Pelosi was just as bad during the Bush era. This isn't a one sided thing.
It seems the entire system is designed for deadlock. Especially with no limit to filibustering in the Senate (unlike Congress). But I guess a Parliamentary system is out of the question... too many people that don't want the government to do anything.
But in my mind at least the people running for leader of the country have an idea what they'd change because they've been arguing the policy all along. (As opposed to, we'll figure out what we want to change in the tax code when we get a chance to see it.) Furthermore, at least you know you have an inkling that the new leader will have some idea how to move Congress forward because they built their party up, held their party together and led them to victory. Plus think of the cost savings that's currently being eaten up by 3 separate elections as well as election cycles running every 2 years (Congress to President) rather than 4-5 years. That'll never happen.
But it seems like a lot of money to pay for them gridlock the entire system. If the goal is less federal government, I'm not even sure gridlock is the right way to go about it.
On September 21 2012 09:13 Defacer wrote: The writer discounts this as luck, but I think there's more to it than that. There's something about Obama's unflappably cool demeanor, worldliness, and effortless likability that lures his political opponents into making unforced mistakes. Think about it -- Clinton, McCain and Romney have all been put in the unenviable position of having to beat him in a popularity context. They're like Ferris' older sister -- they end up having to over-react, try to hard or 'act-out' just to get anyone's attention.
Obama is also brilliant at subtly goading his opponents with out looking unfair or unreasonable. If Obama didn't poke fun at Romney for being 'new' to foreign policy at the DNC, do you think Romney would have pulled the trigger on a petty and callous press release admonishing Obama for apologizing to terrorists, even before the nature and gravity of the crisis is fully understood?
I hope four years from now people write essays about the impact of the Obama Bueller effect on elections
Yeah, whatever your opinion of Obama's policies, it's hard to deny that he's mastered the art of politics to an uncanny degree, rivaling JFK.
Surely you must be joking. No one who knows anything about politics confuses Obama with being a master politician. He pales in comparison to people like Clinton. Even Bush was a better political actor.
He's not a master politician, but he has an innate ability that you can't buy or teach. For whatever reason, he makes the people that like him feel great about themselves and the people that don't look petty. He has a magical aura that causes his enemies to sabotage themselves.
People try to draw him into controversy or bring him down to their level, but he refuses to bite. The 47% remark is an huge opening for him to attack Romney with harsh criticism, but if anything, his responses have been tempered and thoughtful. Can you imagine the melodramatic conniption Biden would have had with that red meat on the table?
He rarely over-reacts, which gives his opponents very little to work with.
It is really depressing to see people mistake Obama's rhetoric for political savvy. It is all bullshit. When you look past the grand speeches to see what Obama has actually accomplished politically, it really is pathetic.
Boo hoo, motherfucker.
When Romney puffs his chest and says that Russia is America's Number 1 geopolitical foe, do you think that accomplishes anything?
Yeah, it does. The problem with "liberal" foreign policy is a lack of clarity. Our friends should be treated as friends. Our foes/competitors should be treated as foes/competitors.
I'll tell you what Putin and Medvedev are thinking. They're laughing their asses off. They're saying, "Wow. This guy hasn't even been to Russia, or met us, and he's already intimidated by us!"
No, they're laughing at Obama for being weak and folding on the missile defense issue and more or less hanging our Eastern European allies out to dry.
Rhetoric matters. Consistency of temperment matters. Civility, and the integrity with which you conduct business or address issues -- matters. It is essential to being a successful politic leader. It dictates the amount of flexibility and moral authority you have in a negotiation; it prevents differences in opinion from becoming adversarial, it determines the kinds of allies and support you have when implementing a solution.
This is all meaningless tripe. Being respected by everyone and feared (as necessary) by enemies doesn't foreclose any of the above.
The fact that you or other conservatives don't recognize that may be symptomatic of why the GOP has, and is failing so colossally the past 12 years. That even though the economy is bad and there is turmoil abroad, the world and so many Americans hold the GOP, Fox News and its faux-patriots in absolute disgust and contempt.
Like I said, I don't give two shits whether the rest of the world likes the US. All that matters is whether other countries respect us and do what we want them to do. This should be the foreign policy aim of any country. If you aren't getting the other countries to do things that are in your interest, then your foreign policy has failed. Period.
Seriously, I hope one day you realize the importance of all these qualities that you dismiss as simply 'rhetoric', for your own sake.
Excuse me if I don't confuse bullshit for tangible results. Obama's foreign policy is 100% bullshit. Numerous times I have asked people to list concrete examples of how Obama has leveraged his popularity into getting other countries to do things that are in the American interest. The only answer I got was from kwizach, who noted that Obama was able to get some other countries sign on to some minor economic treaty that I had never even heard of before. If that's the best that Obama can do, then he sucks, and his popularity abroad, as I have posited, is meaningless.
EPT
