Obama Adminstration Meta Discussion

Azdak

It seems like a number of other political topics (recent one on Ryan) eventually turn into general discussions about the Obama administration and the 2012 POTUS election. I find that there are times when I want to expand on those discussions, but I am reluctant to further hijack a topic.

I also get discouraged because most political discussion turn into what I feel are superficial "tennis matches" in which people just end up bouncing talking points back and forth with no real substance.

So.....being the eternal optimist that I am, I am starting up a separate topic dedicated to what I hope will be a "long-form" discussion of the Obama administration.

In doing so, I also want to set some guidelines:

1. Let's make this is a "no-spin" zone. Leave the nonsense from the cable shows and the internet emails out of this. If you think "Obama is a socialist" then be prepared to prove a working knowledge of both Obama and socialism.

2. Let's acknowledge that that events don't happen in isolation, so be prepared to provide context and background for assertions. E.g. Obama's attempts at legislation vs republican obstructionism; if someone asserts that policies from the Bush administration are still responsible for economic problems, explain what policies and why, and what Obama has or hasn't done about them--conversely, don't dismiss those assertions with "oh you are just blaming bush for everything" without substantiation.

3. I want to hear thoughtful criticism of the Obama administration. But I also want to hear the specific alternatives, esp those proposed by Romney and Ryan.

4. Please try to avoid comparative trivialization and charges of "hypocrisy". If someone is criticizing a specific action by Obama, try not to respond with "well, George Bush did such-and-such". Let each action stand on its own merits. Sometimes, right is right and wrong is wrong and there are NOT two sides to every issue.

I am not trying to stifle debate with these recommendations. Rather, I am trying to encourage a higher level of debate that what is normally found on online forums. Too often, I feel like we get bogged down in superficial sloganeering without ever having a substantial debate on the most important topics facing us.

If you feel this is too restrictive, then I guess this topic will just die a natural death. But I am hoping that people will see some value in having a thoughtful, respectful discussion.

Azdak

Unfortunately, I have to get up for a 12-hour shift in 6 hours, so I don't have time for as much detail, but let me start off:

I have been clear and open about my support for President Obama. I felt my better about my vote in 2008 than I have in any of the 15 presidential elections in which I have voted. Living in Illinois, I have had more opportunity to get to know Obama's record. During the 2008 primarily campaign, I took the time to read most of his speeches and policy papers. I also had the opportunity to meet him and hear him speak in person in 2006, before he decided to run for President. With all of that, I decided pretty early on that I felt that he had the best combination of qualities that I wanted in a President. Again, having had time to research his background, I had realistic expectations of what he would deliver as President. Unlike many others, I wasn't expecting a pony, so I have not been disappointed that I didn't get one.

Here is a brief summary of Obama's positives as President:

1. Prevented a second Great Depression--no small feat, although no one seems to remember that.

2. Stabilized our national banking infrastructure.

3. Saved the American auto industry.

4. Achieved (although the battle is not yet won) the beginnings of a fundamental reform of our health care system, something that no President had been able to pull off in my lifetime.

5. Managed an orderly end to the war in Iraq (acknowledging that the process was set in place by the Bush admin, but had to stay the course in spite of calls in military to maintain a longer presence); has managed the war in Afghanistan with planning and preparation). Has shown flexibility in responding to different international crises--choosing the appropriate response based on the circumstances of each event, rather than a cookie cutter approach.

6. Restored America's standing and reputation in the world. Has orchestrated fundamental realignments of diplomatic strategy to recognize changes in geopolitical realities.

7. Has maintained a focus on proactive engagement with terrorist organizations without delusions of creating an American empire. (Although the tactics used represent one of his greater failures, IMO).

8. With domestic policy, has remained true to his campaign pledge to focus on the middle class and the focus on trying to create more opportunities for ALL Americans. This includes actions such as Lily Ledbetter Act (symbolic as it might be), repeat of Don't Ask Don't Tell, reforming student loans, trying to implement provisions of DREAM Act. If you look at Obama public events, the audiences look like America in 2012, as opposed to Republican events, that look like America in 1952.

9. Has demonstrated exceptional leadership in decision-making and managing the duties of his office. Reading any of the insider books so far about the Obama presidency and reading remarks made by those involved--even many of those who strenuously disagree with Obama's policies--has shown a consistent theme: a President who is able to get the most out his people, a President who asks the right questions and has a grasp of every issue, a President who encourages debate and alternate viewpoints in order to come to the best decisions. The military leaders who were in on the planning sessions and execution of the bin Laden all agreed that President Obama made the gutsy calls and "was the smartest guy in the room".

10. And, compared to past administrations, has carried out his duties relatively free of scandal.

Here are my negatives:

1. Did not hold anyone in the Bush administration accountable for war crimes committed during. Even if one felt that actual criminal charges would not have been in our national interest, a full investigation and public report should have been done at the least. Failure to do so pretty much ensures that someone will do that same or worse in the future.

2. Has seemingly continued some of the more unsavory practices. Has not been particularly forthcoming about what and why. Has expanded the use of drone attacks, even against American citizens, without sufficient justification or explanation.

3. Bailed out the banks and prevented a global meltdown, but failed to make meaningful changes and hold those responsible accountable. By not breaking up the banks, we are still at risk from institutions that are "too big to fail".

4. For all the positive actions to stabilize and improve the economy, has failed to improve conditions in the housing industry. This, not the ARRA (which was actually quite successful), is the biggest criticism IMO that one can make of Obama's handling of the economy.

5. Wasted a lot of time trying to be "bipartisan", instead of calling out republican obstructionism from day one. Also Obama has always been an incrementalist, and too often seems to settle for what he can get, rather than fighting for what would be best (e.g. public option).

6. Obama is a really smart guy and likes to hang out with other really smart guys. Most of the time that has served him well, but, as happened during the Kennedy administration, sometimes a bunch of smart guys can get caught up admiring their own smartness. I think the result has been a preoccupation with technical aspects of global finance (hence the lack of action against the banks) and maybe proposals that are too complex and too slow to emerge. This and Obama's incrementalism were the two shortcomings I predicted after Obama's election and I think events have proven me right.

So that's my brief synopsis. Obviously, to me, the bottom line is that I think Obama is far and away the superior choice in November.

treetop57

Great synopsis, Azdak. I agree with you on every point. If I had to reiterate one, it would be your fifth negative. He seems to have taken his rhetoric about "changing Washington" more seriously than I ever did. Perhaps he had to play the bipartisan game long enough to prove the lack of good faith on the other side, but he frittered away most of the time he had a Congressional majority trying to negociate with people for whom compromise is a dirty word.

VelociMama

Good post Azdak.

I agree with your assessment, but I would also like to add a few of the things I think about Obama:

Positives:

1. Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This was an excellent piece of legislation that gives more teeth to the Civil Rights Act when it comes to gender discrimination by allowing women to sue for damages within 180 days of each discrimination paycheck, not just the first incident.

2. New credit protection measures. Protects consumers from predatory behavior by credit card companies. I had an incident a few years ago in college where my payment for my credit card didn't go through (bank's fault, not mine). My CC company doubled my interest rate overnight. It took 3 months of phone calls to finally get them to agree to put it back at the original rate despite the fact that I had never missed a single payment before. Now, I know my CC company cannot do that anymore. Neither can they subject me or anyone else to predatory practices like this again. For that, I am very thankful.

3. I also have seen a direct positive impact from stimulus money on my community. My university had 3 buildlings that were in danger of being condemned due to lack of funding to replace them. Now, thanks to stimulus funds, we are going to have 3 brand new top-of-the-line buildings that are going to put our program even further ahead giving our researchers and students the best facilities in our field to work and study.

As for a couple negatives, but ones I feel very strongly about:

1. Continuing the practice of warrantless wiretapping and the indefinite imprisonment of POW's without a fair trial. The whole Patriot Act makes me very uneasy, and having the Obama administration not immediately make efforts to repeal it makes me uneasy also.

2. BLOATED defense spending. We still spend way way too much on defense that, if we made cuts, could help offset the deficit problem we are dealing with now without cutting social safetynet programs. It sometimes seems like the democrats are afraid that they'll be seen as "soft on defense" if they cut defense spending especially around an election year.

I also wholly agree with you about Obama's attempts at bipartisanship. It was a waste of time from the beginning. As soon as Mitch McConnell verbalized the GOP's goals to make him a "one-term president," he should've just quit trying to do anything with them. What are they going to do if he gets re-elected? Stall some more? Impeach him? Their behavior in the last 3 years has been embarrassing.

In my opinion, Obama has been an incredible president sofar, and I'm happy to be voting for him again in 2012, especially given the alternative.

DoingItNow2012

Another agree. I truly think things could have been so much worse than they are now, and I believe that Obama was instrumental in stopping the bleed. I think things could have been better, if there was more cooperation in Washington. This is not a dictatorship. I find it so crazy that you can have elected officials blatantly say that it is their number one priority to prevent reelection, and purposefully obstruct any effort to arrive at a solution to better this country, and there not be more of an uproar.

Anyway, I have nothing substantial to add. We were headed in one direction economically and reputation wise, and now we are headed in a direction I approve of, even if not at a miraculous speed. So he will have my vote, unless Romney can convince me he can take us that same direction faster and more effectively. So far that is not happening. Same for Ron Paul.

Azdak

As for a couple negatives, but ones I feel very strongly about:

1. Continuing the practice of warrantless wiretapping and the indefinite imprisonment of POW's without a fair trial. The whole Patriot Act makes me very uneasy, and having the Obama administration not immediately make efforts to repeal it makes me uneasy also.

I am pretty sure that when he signed this bill and others that are similar, Obama included signing statements that outlined how his administration intended to use the law, and how they were observing the Constitution.

Which is all well and good, but signing statements don't mean diddly. For some reason, he seemed to feel that by outlining that he was going to "use the power for good", that justified granting the government the power in the first place.

alpha2omega

5. Wasted a lot of time trying to be "bipartisan", instead of calling out republican obstructionism from day one. Also Obama has always been an incrementalist, and too often seems to settle for what he can get, rather than fighting for what would be best (e.g. public option).

I will address point 5 for now. When ACA was first written, Obama never wanted to or needed to be bipartisan because of his super majority in Congress so how Republicans, prior to 2010, could be considered obstructionist is beyond me. If anything, the Democrats could not even garner 100% support among there own ranks as proven by the house vote on ACA. When ACA was presented to the public through town hall meetings it was quite apparent the bill was not popular with the electorate. This is what lead to the Democrats watering down ACA by removing the public option, all by themselves. There constituents and the majority of the population, for that matter, rejected this legislation, proven by the overwhelming defeat the democrats suffered during the 2010 midterm elections.

The Democrats are the ones who swung the political pendulum in Washington far left by having the ability to pass their agenda unopposed from 2008 to 2010. Republican "obstructionism" and the formation of the Tea Party were reactions to having the most fundamentally liberal and idealistic President ever to be elected to office and having his agenda imposed on the American people, without opposition.

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan. He is an extreme and unapologetic ideologue with very little legislative experience and no executive experience to speak of. He does not possess the aptitude or experience to be a successful President, proven by his failed record.

EvanKeel

On the subject of the so-called super majority, two of those seats were held by independents that happened to caucus with Dems. One of those independents was a speaker at the republican convention and the other was a 5-term republican that happened to switch parties because he feared a losing his primary. That's not even looking at those politicians who have a D by their name but won't necessarily vote that way.

An actual super majority happens on a case by case basis and only when the planets align on a particular issue. ACA was a gamble that the POTUS had to use considerable political capital to manage to pull off. The idea of a consistent democrat super majority between 2008-2010 is a myth.

doorki

On the subject of the so-called super majority, two of those seats were held by independents that happened to caucus with Dems. One of those independents was a speaker at the republican convention and the other was a 5-term republican that happened to switch parties because he feared a losing his primary. That's not even looking at those politicians who have a D by their name but won't necessarily vote that way.

An actual super majority happens on a case by case basis and only when the planets align on a particular issue. ACA was a gamble that the POTUS had to use considerable political capital to manage to pull off. The idea of a consistent democrat super majority between 2008-2010 is a myth.

And even if you do the math, it was for about 6 months total and half of that was spent in recess.

VelociMama

As for a couple negatives, but ones I feel very strongly about:

1. Continuing the practice of warrantless wiretapping and the indefinite imprisonment of POW's without a fair trial. The whole Patriot Act makes me very uneasy, and having the Obama administration not immediately make efforts to repeal it makes me uneasy also.

I am pretty sure that when he signed this bill and others that are similar, Obama included signing statements that outlined how his administration intended to use the law, and how they were observing the Constitution.

Which is all well and good, but signing statements don't mean diddly. For some reason, he seemed to feel that by outlining that he was going to "use the power for good", that justified granting the government the power in the first place.

That is exactly why it makes me uncomfortable. Who defines what is "good" and what is "bad"? Without some objective system in place to make that distinction, the whole thing is just a slippery slope into stripping our constitutional right to a fair trial and our presumption of innocence away. The level of government intrusion that is now "legal" is disturbing.

VelociMama

On the subject of the so-called super majority, two of those seats were held by independents that happened to caucus with Dems. One of those independents was a speaker at the republican convention and the other was a 5-term republican that happened to switch parties because he feared a losing his primary. That's not even looking at those politicians who have a D by their name but won't necessarily vote that way.

An actual super majority happens on a case by case basis and only when the planets align on a particular issue. ACA was a gamble that the POTUS had to use considerable political capital to manage to pull off. The idea of a consistent democrat super majority between 2008-2010 is a myth.

This.

There is a good article explaining this, including names and dates, here: http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/

treetop57

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

ChappyEight

Great stuff so far!

alpha2omega

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

ChappyEight

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

alpha2omega

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

doorki

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

So you would rather continue polluting instead of actually taking steps toward cleaner energy?

I find this to actually be taking into account the well-being of the country and world.

EvanKeel

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Without bothering to read the articles, aren't you making an a priori assumption that the use of coal ( and by extension the coal industry) does more good than harm? And if we agree that that assumption is debatable, calling Obama's "intentions"--again subject for debate--insulting sounds closer to inflammatory name-calling than honest discourse.

Azdak

alpha2omega says:

It is, at best, a joke to think Obama ever wanted to or even has the ability to be partisan.

A Freudian slip?

I also think it interesting that A2O uses "fundamentally idealistic" as an insult. Or maybe that was a typo as well.

lol Nice catch.

When Obama puts his philosophy before the well being of the American people, yes, it is insulting.

Examples?

Here is one example regarding his intent on bankrupting the coal industry.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-advances-plan-to-bankrupt-coal-industry-with-new-co2-limits/


There are about 174,000 full time jobs directly related to the coal industry in the US.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

And herein lies the essential contrast in approach to the discussion. One of the points of this thread was to try to elevate the level of dicussion to a more intelligent and nuanced level, where people could explore their positions in more depth and in a way more reflective of the complexity of the issues surrounding us, instead of relying on empty cliches, talking points, lies, etc. You have seen some of the comments posted already from people who support Obama in general, but have specific criticisms of some of the actions of his administration.

You have chosen to take the opposite approach.

Your source of "information" represents the paranoid, delusional, bat-*kitten* crazy wing of the Republican party and conservatives.

Here is another view on the same subject:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/08/18/obama-and-romney-energizing-their-bases-by-muddying-coal-and-wind/

I strongly urge everyone to read both articles and compare the approaches to the same subject. It speaks volumes about who is really behind the so-called "polarization" of the electorate.

EvanKeel

As an Obama supporter, I will say I don't agree with his stance on education. Higher education should not be available for everyone, having nothing to do with money. Community colleges are filled people who shouldn't be there because they are simply incapable of doing the work. But open enrollment is open enrollment. Also, it is not the job higher education, community colleges in particular, to supply the workforce with good workers. Public education's focus should be to produce an informed electorate capable of thinking critically.

This customer service, privatized, attitude towards education is nice downward spiral.

Azdak

This is not always a fun read, but it represents some of the underlying conflicts facing our attempts to deal with the economic crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/20/the-best-case-against-the-obama-administration/

In short, it describes how housing debt is perhaps the primary issue preventing economic recovery. It describes how ineffective the Obama administration has been at addressing this problem, but it also presents how the best solutions were so complex and politically toxic that the public would not accept them, and how the Republicans have no alternative whatsoever.