Wednesday, February 10, 2010


herb said...

Yes you do. Without Bush to play boogeyman the left has had to villify the American citizen, which is a failing tactic that is causing them to steadily lose elected seats.

Ian McGibboney said...

Bush's presidency was a tragic era that should never have happened. It will take years, if not decades, to reverse all the damage that he and his cronies caused. If you think I got some kind of kick out of criticizing that for eight years, you are wrong. Millions suffered and struggled (including myself at times) and many continue to do so. I'm glad that we wised up as a nation and elected a real leader, someone who uses his head and presses on despite the most vicious, fact-illiterate, ideologically bankrupt opposition in American history.

So, no, I don't miss George W. Bush. But I feel you'll miss Obama when he's gone, because you hate him more than you care about this country's success.

Michael said...

Not just no, but hell no!

NOLA Progressive said...

Miss him? Not even a little lol. I've been too high on enjoying Lombardi Gras, but this one took me out of my euphoric state for a minute or two.

You have to give it to the GOP though, they are really good at staying on message and pushing the hell out of said message. If it snows, boom! No more climate change. The whole country was fucked up even more than expected and unemployment doesn't reverse in 12 months, boom! Obama is taking the country over the cliff. The interest payment on our defecit is right at what it was under George Sr., boom! The end is nigh and Obama has bankrupted the USA and ruined our ability to be a global presence (except when being a global member is a bad thing like negotiating nuclear proliferation issues).

These guys are the best used car salesman ever!

Oh and so I'm not too one-sided. The Democrats suck monkey balls at staying on message and pushing said message with any unity!!

herb said...

Obama is a leader? Name one thing he has been a leader on. One thing.

Ian McGibboney said...

Herb, I can answer your question. But it is a fallacy. It presumes that I have no problems with the Obama presidency. I do, particularly with his appeal to bipartisanship that is repeatedly backfiring on him because the GOP is determined that he fail.

However, to say he has not lead on one single thing is not only disingenuous, but contradicts your own oft-stated fears. Eventually, you and your ilk are going to have to choose between Obama being an empty, ineffective suit and being the most dangerous leader of our times. You shouldn't be arguing either, and you certainly can't argue both.

That said, here are some efforts Obama's led in office:

The stimulus. Touring the world trying to repair America's international reputation. Sotomayor appointed to the Supreme Court. The climate deal in Copenhagen. Reforms in banking and lending. More resources, such as armor, for troops. Increases in infrastructure spending. Decisive action against Somali pirates. Cash for clunkers. Push for green energy. Improving VA conditions. Relaxed policy on Cuba. SCHIP expansion. Stronger FDA. And he's still trying for health care. And more.

You don't have to like them, Herb, but there they are. You can't say he hasn't led on anything just because you don't like Obama. What he's done in the face of his vociferous opposition is nothing short of remarkable.

NOLA/Michael - Hell no indeed. And yes, I wish the Democrats could stay on message. I guess that's the price of not being of one "mind" like the Republicans.

Sky Girl said...

You don't have to try to run amok over the world to be a leader. A real leader knows this.

Here, here, Ian.

It has been interesting to watch the Republicans try to spin their way out of an open discussion on health care. With our country's leader.

Oh, to answer the original question, hell frickin' no.

herb said...

"have to choose between Obama being an empty, ineffective suit and being the most dangerous leader of our times."

He can't be both? Obama himself has said he's a "blank slate people can project their hopes onto", It doesn't get much more empty suit than that. He's dangerous because he doesn't know how to lead and let's others, like lobbyists and his idiot cronies in Congress, make all his decisions for him. He's the most dangerous kind of politician.

As for your list of what he's shown leadership on, well lets break it down:

Stimulus - A massive failure, such a failure that they are crafting Stimulus 2, although they realize the stigma the original has with the electorate so they are calling it a "jobs bill".

World tour - They still hate us, and they always will. Russia and China are still chomping at the bit to bring us down and he's been a complete failure in the middle east.

Sotomayor - Appointing SC judges is a standard part of the POTUS's job. I fail to see how this is leadership. This is like giving a kid a cookie for making poopie in the toilet.

Copenhagen - A failure. Read pretty much any foreign newspaper and they all say the same thing.

Banking reforms - A failure. They don't do much to protect people from risk taking banks and don't even apply to the large "non-banks" like AIG that got us into this mess anyway.

Armor for troops - Another basic duty of a POTUS. Despite what you read on DU, Bush did the same thing.

Infrastructure spending - Part of the Stimulus, which is a failure.

Somali pirates - Lol really?

Cash for clunkers - Short term success, in the long term it did nothing, and actually hurt some dealerships.

Green energy - Failure. Cap and Tax stalled in the Senate and will go nowhere.

VA -Lol, you mean offloading treatment to private insurance companies? The American Legion isn't too please with this plan.

Relaxed Cuba relations - Basically he acquiesced for nothing in return. That's not leadership, that's getting cornholed.

SCHIP - Insignificant

Stronger FDA - I can't find any evidence of him doing anything other than ordering a review of FDA operations.

Health care - Despite a year of having not just a majority, but a goddamn SUPERMAJORITY, he did nothing but turn the public against it and get nothing passed. That's not leadership, that's a stunning failure of leadership.

"It has been interesting to watch the Republicans try to spin their way out of an open discussion on health care. With our country's leader."

It's not a discussion. It's Obama throwing the bill Pelosi and her lobbyist pals crafted on the table and telling Republicans to accept it. He knows the bill is garbage and the American public is against it so he desperately wants some Republicans on board so he can take it off the table as a GOP weapon come election time.

Ian McGibboney said...

Herb, most of your "analysis" is opinion. And that's fine, but you're sacrificing some coherence here. Your original point was that Obama hasn't led on anything, and now you're saying he's leading badly. Hell, even if he's a failure at everything (which he's not), he still has to lead to fail. Your hatred of Obama (and everything I ever say) is leading you down some conflicting paths.

herb said...

"Not leading" and "leading badly" are two sides of the same coin, you know that but you're just playing semantics.

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, no they're not. They're actually two contradicting notions. Argue one or the other.

I thought Bush was a failure and a bad leader, but I never would have said, "Name one thing Bush has been a leader on." That's just stupid.

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, no they're not. They're actually two contradicting notions. Argue one or the other.

I thought Bush was a failure and a bad leader, but I never would have said, "Name one thing Bush has been a leader on." That's just stupid.

herb said...

The lengths you'll go to twist simple logic and meaning to defend Obama is fantastic.

He's a horrible leader because he's a failure as a leader. It's not that hard to grasp.

Sky Girl said...

"It's not a discussion..."

Yeah, I know it's a big scary TRAP. I've heard what the Republicans have had to say. It makes me laugh.

An two-way vocalization where both people get to speak, is, in fact, a discussion. It's just that when the Republicans don't get to have it all their way and talk about only what their little crib notes on their hand tell them to say, they have to call it something other than a "discussion." Like a big scary TRAP. Or "throwing the bill Pelosi and her lobbyist pals crafted on the table and telling Republicans to accept it."

Republicans are scared of open communication. It's why they never concern themselves with it. They just rant, rave, try to scare their constituents, and carry on as you have here, Herb.

I for one, would like to see a different approach.

NOLA Progressive said...

Herb, man. That was jaded and loaded to be as polite as I possibly can be. You threw out some major moves made over the last year and just slapped them with "epic fail" labels as if we all just accept that as fact. I, for one, certainly see the impact of several of your buzz points very differently than you do.

The man has led undenieably. By his own admission just recently he has attempted bipartisan reachout too much and allowed the discourse to be run by Congress. Also, by his own admission he has learned from that and will do things differntly in the upcoming year. That is what I like about this guy. He learns quickly, and I think he will apply what he has learned effectively.

Sure, you and many will not like a plethera of his initiatives, but to make the argument that he hasn't led is just taking Sean Hannity's radio script and buying it wholesale.

herb said...

"An two-way vocalization where both people get to speak, is, in fact, a discussion."

Democrats don't get to go behind closed doors, with their lobbyist pals and not a single Republican in the room, and craft legislation, watch it fail and THEN decide to bring Republicans in to try and salvage it. That's not noble or admirable, it's scummy. Where was all this high minded love of DISCUSSION when Democrats were doing that? Oh that's right, you were all for that tactic because you thought they could steamroll this shit past the public. Sucks that didn't work out for you.

"Republicans are scared of open communication."

Republicans wanted a open discussion 6 months ago, it was your beloved Democrats that decided they would rather have lobbyists in the room with them crafting bills than their fellow lawmakers.

"By his own admission just recently he has attempted bipartisan reachout too much and allowed the discourse to be run by Congress. Also, by his own admission he has learned from that and will do things differntly in the upcoming year."

So what you and him have learned from his epic failures brought on by not even attempting bipartisanship is to have even less bipartisanship? That sounds like a winning plan.

As I said, to have all your grand initiatives turn out to be stellar failures shows a severe lack of leadership. I don't get how you can sit there and pontificate about his great leadership skills when he couldn't even get his signature legislation passed with a super majority. He's Jimmy Cartering it up and you guys are whistling past the graveyard.

Sky Girl said...

Herb, your stating your opinions over and over does not magically convert your opinions into facts. Just sayin'.

herb said...

Look, I've read you blog and realize that whatever I throw out there to question Obama will be seen by you as "opinion". Facts are facts and you saying over and over again that they are opinion doesn't magically make them so. Just sayin'

I'm just wondering how many more comments it will take of me criticizing Obama for you to call me a racist. I know it's already percolating in your head.

Sky Girl said...

Are you talking about my blog? Are there even any posts on my blog about Obama? I'm perplexed. I do have a great post where I rake the Dems across the coals for poor performance.

My blog is brand new, and supposed to be a group-written effort. I invited some conservatives; so far haven't found anyone willing to take me up on the challenge. But I'll keep looking. Because you can't have a one-sided discussion about changing the country.

I am, however, excluding mind-readers from authorship, so don't look for any posts from people who know what's "percolating" in other people's heads. When these discussions disintegrate from philosophical disagreements to personal attacks, I'm out like Evan Bayh.

NOLA Progressive said...

There's nothing racial in your discussion. You just disseminated from your original point is all. You asked Ian to name one thing he has led on, and Ian did. You didn't care for those things, and you view them as failures. I and I'm guessing the other commentors in this thread, do not view them as failures.

I mean look, we could have a long drawn on discussion about the "stimulus" package and the various ways in which it has been a success, but you are going to see it totally differently than I will. We could discuss banking reform and the specific changes which I see as having already made positive impacts, but you wouldn't agree and further point out what more could have been done.

The point here is I don't ever expect that a discussion of that type will really be successfull amongst us, but Ian did offer a response on the examples of leadership piece, and this thing has simply denigrated from there.

Oh and regarding the point you made about my partisanship comment: I do believe that Obama bent an awful lot to gain a modicum of Republican support and also Blue Dog support. He was very concerned with hoping the Congressional process would come together and work. I think he realizes that our system of government isn't all that great and that the Senate is basically a useless body. Hopefully he will carry forward with his talk of using executive orders and other Presidential authority to implement some necessary reforms.

At least then they would be pure and attributal to only him. He can sink or swim with them from there.

Ian McGibboney said...

Sky Girl: Herb was probably referring to my blog. I like what you're doing, though. There isn't enough of that.

NOLA: I agree. I was ready to address the relative merits of each point, but it would be futile when someone like Herb has opened with false universal assumptions.

Herb: Nothing you've said makes me think you're racist. I do think you're convinced of the evil of liberalism, which isn't really the place to start a reasonable discussion.

herb said...

"I and I'm guessing the other commentors in this thread, do not view them as failures."

Considering that other than me this thread is full of ultra die hard Obama supporters you might see how that doesn't surprise me. I've laid out why Obama and his laughably bad policies are failures and no one here has rebutted them with anything other than a "NUH UH!", and it's pretty obvious you can't, but we can move on if harping on it bathers you that much.

"Oh and regarding the point you made about my partisanship comment: I do believe that Obama bent an awful lot to gain a modicum of Republican support and also Blue Dog support."

No he didn't. Pelosi's bill was crafted behind closed doors without a single Republican in the room. I don't see how he expected any Republican support then or now for it.

"Hopefully he will carry forward with his talk of using executive orders and other Presidential authority to implement some necessary reforms."

Oh I hope he does. Seeing as his approval rating is under 50% I'd love for him to put on his little dictator hat and push through wildly unpopular "reforms". It's pretty much another sign of his failing leadership, can't get people to join you so you circumvent them. Great leader indeed.

And no, I was talking about Sky Girl's blog. I only read her letters to Democrats post but it was so ridiculous and fact deficient that I had to close my browser and vomit in a nearby bush.

Ian McGibboney said...

Herb, your comments are indicative of the problems with Congress. If Democrats have been excluding the GOP in legislation-drafting, it's because the Republicans have made clear that Obama's almost pitiful push for bipartisanship will be met only with fierce, reactionary resistance with no dissent or cause apart from the failure of the Obama administration. Real playground stuff.

Herb, you and your ilk are the same way. Just look at the trajectory of this discussion. Once you reached a point you couldn't snark your way out of, it became all about us.

The problem isn't with us, because the ball is in your court. We rebutted your points, and you have yet to address that with anything other than personal attacks. And your description of Obama as a dictator and his policies as "wildly unpopular" suggest a lack of grounding in this discussion. Not to mention the vomit thing. Herb, give it up.

herb said...

"If Democrats have been excluding the GOP in legislation-drafting, it's because the Republicans have made clear that Obama's almost pitiful push for bipartisanship will be met only with fierce, reactionary resistance with no dissent or cause apart from the failure of the Obama administration."

So he's not bipartisan because he's scared Republicans won't be either? Here's an idea, maybe he should craft some legislation that isn't WILDLY UNPOPULAR. Maybe then he might get some Republicans on his side. I know it's waaaaay out there and crazy for politicians to not support a measure that the public isn't too fond of, but that's just how our broken system works gosh darn it!

btw when did you rebut my points? Just saying "NUH UH those are opinions!" isn't rebutting them. Prove me wrong, I welcome your attempts.

Pssst, by the way, that thing I did I put there with the link to a relevant article backing up my claims? Yeah that's called proof, sometimes referred to as "facts". Maybe you guys can use some kind of system like that to rebut my earlier statements about Obama failures. Just a suggestion.

Ian McGibboney said...

1) The Republicans have repeatedly done all they can to vote against Obama's measures, because he is Obama and the Democrats are in power. Period. If it was an issue of substance, then Obama's push for bipartisanship might have bore some fruit. But all it did was water down some really strong legislation, for which the GOP never had any intent of voting for anyway, and turning it into unpopular bills such as the health care bill, the failure of which the GOP now wants to ride into power in November. They work this way because they are ideologically, ethically and politically bankrupt and don't really care about helping the country.

2) Herb, I suggest you read that link more carefully. The polls show that people are unhappy with the health care bills in their current form. You know, the ones that started out promising but are now stained by cynical compromise with the GOP and the Blue Dog Democrats. That's what the people are unhappy with, not the idea that we shouldn't have health care reform. Even some of my most conservative friends, after struggling with insurance companies, are now in favor of strong reform. That tide's only going to get stronger.

3) As NOLA said earlier, not everyone agrees that all of Obama's moves are failures. That is the driving point behind all of your criticism, which is why none of it holds up.

herb said...

"The Republicans have repeatedly done all they can to vote against Obama's measures"

Maybe because they are far left, extreme measures and Republicans don't generally vote for those types of things. I know Democrats have no moral compass and govern by opinion polls, but Republicans actually have values and ideals they aren't going to compromise because President Awesome asks them really nicely.

"not the idea that we shouldn't have health care reform"

Nice strawman. I never said or even alluded that people didn't want ANY kind of health care reform, I just said they didn't like Obama's plan, which my link proves.

Ian McGibboney said...

"Far-left, extreme measures?" Like what? Obama is governing solidly from the center. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most far-left supporters are angry at him right now for that exact reason. I'm not necessarily angry, but that's probably because I'm not actually that far left. It just seems that way to you, Herb, because the far right in this country is so extremist that even a moderate stance seems radical by comparison.

As for governing by opinion polls, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You seem to be overreliant on polls yourself, Herb.

Michael said...

Funny, herb, but I don't remember ever hearing you or any other conservacon/Republicant bitching about how awful it was when it was the Republican majority going behind closed doors, meeting with lobbyists, and presenting legislation for the Democrats to swallow or reject as a package.

Funny how that process looks differently when you're on the other side of the doors, innit?

herb said...

"Like what? Obama is governing solidly from the center."

On some things he is, but his signature legislative goals are hard core leftist. UHC/single payer and ramping up government spending are not "the center".

"Funny, herb, but I don't remember ever hearing you or any other conservacon/Republicant bitching about how awful it was when it was the Republican majority.."

Considering you and I didn't know each other in 2005 it's not surprising you never heard me bitching about Republican spending. I did. Plenty of other conservatives did too.

Sky Girl said...

Ok, I tried to hold it in, because it's not taking the high road.

But I've bragged all day about how I made a wingnut puke in a bush in a few short paragraphs. Tee hee.

Ok, I'll try to get back to a serious discussion of the country now.

Herb, you've accused several people here of not knowing the facts. I'm just going to address the facts in my own blog post that you came out and attacked so vehemently.

1. The Republicans and George Bush used a much smaller majority than the Democrats had now to push through legislation Sky Girl didn't like. FACT.

2. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress took away and redesignated public lands for other uses more than any other admnistration in history, and even tried to push drilling in ANWR. FACT.

3. Warrantless wiretaps, a violation of my 4th Amendment rights, became a reality. FACT.

4. No one has ever explained why, initially, war in Iraq was necessary. The original reason was WMD, and there were none. FACT. Since then it has all been damage control about terrorism. FACT. There has never been any ties to 9-11 and Irag. FACT. We are now stuck there and it's messy. FACT.

5. "No one batted an eye." Ok, not a fact. I batted an eye. Some of my liberal friends batted their eyes. But Bush and the Republican controlled Congress got behind some closed doors and pushed it on us anyway.

6. The Democrats have screwed up so badly a guy who formerly posed nude in a magazine just replaced Ted Kennedy. FACT.

7. The "death panel" rhetoric is just that...rhetoric. FACT. I get emails about it from conservatives almost every day. FACT. The cost estimates of the Obama plan are blow out of proportion in many of these emails. FACT. You can check all of these emails at independent sources and find out how close they are to accurrate, and most of the emails I get are outrageous. You can argue with this, but you don't receive my email.

8. The Democrats have sucked at getting out any accurate counter-information. FACT.

9. Obama is blamed for Bush's failed economy because he hasn't been able to fix it fast enough. FACT. He is regularly blamed for economic failures that happened in 2005, 2006. People expected him to take office and fix the housing market and unemployment in the first 90 days. When he hadn't, his approval ratings fell. FACT. People call the package passed in December just before Obama took office in January the "Obama package" on television all the time. FACT.

10. Nancy Pelosi is scary on t.v. Sky Girl's opinion.

11. There is a vast sucking hole of information about what is actually in and what is out of the public option proposal. FACT.

12. The Democrats have sucked at passing legislation. FACT.

13. Washington insiders lose touch with reality. FACT.

14. John Stewart was right when he said the Republicans were playing chess and the Democrats were in the nurse's office because they glued their balls to their thighs again. Sky Girl's opinion.

15. The Replican's are better at pointing out Democrat dishonesty on television than the Democrats are at pointing out Republican dishonesty. FACT. The Republicans are just meaner. Rudy Giuliani did say that there were no no terrorist attacks since 9/11 while Bush was President, leaving out the shoe bomber. FACT. Liz Cheney did imply the Christmas day bomber and Fort Hood incident were related on 1/10/10 (it was so ridiculous I backed it up 3 times to be sure). FACT.

I'm sure you will try to argue with some of this, but the truth is, aside from my acknowledged opnions (and it is my letter to Congress), this information is factual.

herb said...

It's pretty sad that you're so desperate for attention that you'll take a throw-away comment by me said in the context of a larger discussion and pen a 633 word screed trying to disprove it. The honest truth "Sky" is that you're nothing special and you're just another garden variety liberal blogger with a big mouth and too much free time. Going through all your deliciously numbered points and picking them apart would bore me to tears, in much the same way that your blog and personality does.

Instead let's do this, why don't you expend an equal amount of effort and try to disprove my earlier points about Obama's failed policies instead of dismissively waiving them off as "opinion" and moving on.

Michael said...

Speaking of pretty sad and failing to notice salient points, herb, you'll notice I said nothing whatsoever about Republican spending, yet that was the only thing which you admitted to bitching about--not the strong-arm tactics of Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, and the rest of that crowd. You had no problems with them going behind closed doors with lobbyists to work up legislation and force it through, so you shouldn't have any problems with it now that it's the Democrats using the rules the Republicans put in place to do likewise.

herb said...

But you have no problem with what Democrats are doing. Funny how in attempting to expose hypocrisy you expose your own.

The difference between Republican tactics then and Democrat tactics now is that Republicans at least compromised and were able to craft and pass legislation in a bipartisan manner, whereas Democrats today seem almost allergic to the idea of either compromise or bipartisanship when it comes to their bills.

Michael said...

Nice try, herb, but unless you can point to a statement where I said I approved of legislating behind closed doors, you're the only one that's on record as being in favor of it--as long as it's the Republicans doing it.

And the Republican Party has never compromised on anything--unless your definition of "compromise" is "Do whatever the Republican Party wants," which is only true in Republicanspeak. Out here in the rest of the world, it means something completely different.

Democrats today are not nearly as allergic to the ideas of compromise or bipartisanship (as defined by Republicans) as I would like them to be. Given that the other party has made it abundantly clear over the past year that it is not interested in helping the Democratic majority govern this nation, I see no reason why the Democratic majority should even bother to ask for the other side's opinion anymore. Just get on with governing. That was, after all, what they were elected to do.

herb said...

Look, if you want to take me not specifically denouncing some tactic 5 years ago as a sign that I wholeheartedly agree with it then go right ahead, it's a standard tactic of the left and I'm used to it. I'm not interested in helping you relive your glory days of semi-relevancy by navel gazing about things done during the Bush years. Did Republicans do some underhanded shit? Sure, politicians suck, we all know this. Did they try to take over 1/6 of the US economy by crafting and passing a bill with zero input from the other side of the aisle? No. There is a difference.

If the crux of your argument boils down to some variation of "I know you are but what am I!?" then I can effectively write you off as as boring and trite as Sky Girl.

Now, is anybody going to try to prove me wrong on the points I listed earlier? I know you would all rather do what you know best (RAR BUSH!!!!!) but really, get the hell over it.

NOLA Progressive said...

O.K. Herb I'll do what you ask. It's pointless because even if we caught George W., Gingrich, and Dick Cheney all doing webcam porn for the devil himself you would call it impressionistic art for religious purposes. But hey why not.

1) The Stimulus has been purpoted by Republicans and Democrats alike as working. A serious recession did not sink into a full-blown depression, and even Republicans are using the Stimulus to secure jobs (which they say isn't possible through this bill).

Also, job loss, while a huge issue is improving under Obama's administration.

2. Belittle Sotamayor's appointment all you want, but there was vociferous opposition and Obama's choice was approved. Just because you want to say "nuh uh" to coin your phrase, doesn't mean it wasn't a successful task on which he led. Do I need a link to verify that Sotamayor was indeed confirmed? You aren't quite as far gone as the birthers yet are you chief?

3. The world still hates us? Really? Obama was given an Peace Prize that you love to say was completely unwarranted because he has been ineffective at changing some of the perception the world has of our country? Hmmm.

4. Copenhagen- Well I would like a whole lot more out of it, but damn dude I can type in what I want to come up in google search and act like a know-it-all douche too.

5. Banking reforms- not much done there yet, I agree with you. However, this will be huge on the agenda this year. Let him push this through via executive order and really stick it to the fat cats and "too big to fails". I'd like to see how smug you are about his wildly unpopular agenda then.

6. yeah just blow off body armor like it doesn't matter. It's just lives and all. Oh and Bush was on the spot with all of this huh?

7. Like it or not for any of us, we are closer to passing substative health insurance reform than ever. I don't like a lot about the bill, but it is close. It will most likely take moving it through in an improved form via reconcilliation, but I think it will still get done.

Well there's a start captain. You will be just as ridiculous as ever, and this won't improve this conversation at all, but what the heck. You are still gonna be the guy that moves goal posts and changes the subject every chance you get. You are still going to be the conservo-guy who sits around and reads blogs he knows are left-leaning and have the audacity to call contributors and other readers nothing special and having too much time etc etc... Pretty douchey move there chief and oh pot/kettle black kinda thing.

herb said...

1. The stimulus was touted as a "jobs bill". We were told the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, in fact were told without the stimulus the unemployment rate would sky rocket to an unbearable 10%! Well we passed it and it failed miserably on all it's stated goals.

2. So he nominated her and the Senate, with his party enjoying a super majority, approved her. Big fucking deal? I still don't see how this is leadership.

3. Lol are you really touting Obama's Peace Prize, which pretty much everyone, INCLUDING OBAMA HIMSELF, doesn't think he deserved as proof that people love us? What has he done for the Israeli conflict? Iran? North Korea? Syria? Hell, Russia would love to take us out and they are supposedly "allies".

4. What came out of the Copenahgen summit? What substantive consensus was reached? NOTHING. It was a failure and you and everyone else knows it was.

5. So you admit it's a failure, that's good.

6. Did I say it didn't matter? Wow, and a NYT link, let me be sure to read that sure to be objective article /rolleyes

7. Health care is a failure. Back in July the "time for talking is over!" per Obama, here we are 6 months later and still nothing and now they have to try and use legislative tricks to sneak this past the will of the people. They are scumbags and they failed to pass it with a super majority. Do you not see how much of a failed leader you have to be to have that happen?

NOLA Progressive said...

1. Every Progressive worth his salt screamed that not nearly enough money was being set aside for the Stimulus plan when it was initially passed. Obama said that was all that could be passed through Congress being reticent about the debt as they were. Obama underistimated what a cluster fuck he inherited, and definitely missed the mark on unemployment goals. It did however, stem job losses and the trend is reversing. As much as you love to criticize the NYT and Krugman, he called this before it ever started by saying this was no where near enough and not nearly fast enough to impact unemployment in a large enough way. That's what you get when a third of the bill is tax cuts. Yeah brilliant damn move, tax-cut your way out of a recession. Absolute freakin genius if I understand it correctly.

2. If we depended on you to see something before it was so, we'd be in a world of hurt. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you see it as leadership. It was listed as an example and supported. That's what you wanted right? In all your type in what I want to see popup into a google search and link the results page, glory, right?

3. I'm touting the fact that even a small turn away from our previous global policies was enough to have Obama awarded a Peace Prize that he hadn't really earned. You stated that everyone still hates us, well obviously that assumption is epic fail from jumpstreet. Obama hasn't solved the Islamic radical issues in the East in a year, no. But, he hasn't jumped the gun and invaded them and sunk is a further cluster- fuck quagmire without trying other avenues either.

4. Simple, a 2 degree celsisus target cap and global indigent country aid fund. In addition, a 20% GDP slowdown by India by 2020 and consensus on the 2 degree point amongst the super-powers U.S., China, Japan, etc... As I said before, not hard and fast enough, but accomplishments nontheless. Certainly not befitting the total failure label.

5. When and if a bill fails, I'll label it a failure. His success and or failure remains to be seen here. You do remember that a President's term is for four years, right?

6. I'd say you acted as if it didn't matter. Either way, he has done a far better job than his predecessor, and again don't really give a rat's ass if you like the NYT or not. The article is able to be fact-checked if you feel that something is erroneous.

7. Again, when health care moves through in whatever form it takes (please God let it be reconcilliation) I will be able to make a judgement on its failure/success.

So like I said, you don't give a shit about facts, links, or cogent points, and again an epic waste of time.