Jump to content

Has Obama failed at everything?

Recommended Posts

70 million people (give or take) voted for Obama's agenda.


Nah. 70 million people voted for Obama. Some of those supported his agenda, some supported an agenda they thought he was pushing even though when yeh read between the lines he was more moderate, and quite a few just voted against George Bush, John McCain, or against the prospect of having Sarah Palin next in line.


I think there was an element of race on the liberal side, eh? Lots of folks assumed that because he was African-American out of Chicago his agenda must be far liberal left, and that he was tacking back toward the center just for campaign purposes. So now they feel betrayed. And, ironically, the other side still feels that he is looney left, even though his track record hasn't been that at all.


What's surprisin' to me isn't the moderate stuff, it's the lack of effectiveness. And the communication thing is a big part of it. Reagan wasn't always a great orator. There were books full of his gaffes. But he was a great communicator. Obama is a great orator, and it's hard to find many verbal gaffes. But he's not a great communicator.




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's why you have no credibility Vol.


"Once again, the healthcare bill was written and passed by democrats without republican input. " But its been proven they offered ammendments that they then voted against. Your comment wasn't based in reality.


"Obama never discussed his agenda."

In your very next post you go into detail his agenda he discussed during the campaign. See the contradiction there?


You can have your own opinions, you just can't have your own facts.


You have a problem. We are trying to help you. Its the scout way.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I listened to the healthcare bill debate over the various news outlets and I have not heard of republicans attaching amendments or being included in any form in the healthcare bill. Another scouter has claimed that as not being correct. I assume that he knows that to be true without insisting on providing facts. Obama did not campaign on redistributing the wealth. He campaigned on healthcare reform which means what? Does it mean some insurance reform to expand the scope of coverage and prevent people with illnesses from losing their coverage or does it mean a total government run system? It meant to each person what they wanted it to mean. Did Obama campaign on over riding experienced generals in the field saying that he knows better than they do about how many troops are needed in Afghanistan (even though he has absolutely no experience or training upon which to draw upon to make that decision). He campaigned on change in general terms with few specifics which is not unique to Obama.


I have in many instances in other discussions presented you with facts about medical practice which you refuse to believe. We all provide our opinions here and use the facts that we have at our command. If it is our field of expertise, then we speak with authority. If it is out of that field of expertise, we mostly get our information from various internet sources which are sometimes correct and sometimes not.


I am sorry that you get so angry that the democrats are solely responsible for the healthcare bill (more accurately a medical care bill because patients must participate to have health care whereas medical is what is provided to patients). If you are angry that it is not a total government take over you need to blame the democrats. If you think that it went to far and is a disaster as many of us do, only the democrats are to blame. Part of the disaster was outlined in the link that I provided citing 74% of physicians want to retire or otherwise remove themselves from their medical practices (I have not tried to look up the article and verify its references). With too few physicians, this is a disaster by itself.


Many voted against President Bush and projected onto Obama what they wanted him to be. The last election showed that they did not like the agenda that he has presented.


There is no need for help from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I listened to the healthcare bill debate over the various news outlets and I have not heard of republicans attaching amendments or being included in any form in the healthcare bill."


I also listened to the debate, but not on news outlets. I watched it happen on C-SPAN. Contrary to what most people believe, the Committee meetings about the healthcare bill were aired on C-SPAN's various channels. What I saw was a lot of republican amendments added that they ultimately voted against. I was disgusted listening to town hall meetings last summer and the rants from people who clearly had no clue about what was in the healthcare bill.


To the original question: no, Obama has not failed at everything. What he has failed at is living up to what both sides believe him to be - he is neither the socialist muslim antichrist nor our savior (or "annoited one" as Hannity likes to say).

Link to post
Share on other sites

" I was disgusted listening to town hall meetings last summer and the rants from people who clearly had no clue about what was in the healthcare bill"


And whose fault is that? Who is to blame for the great unwashed not to know what is in and what isn't in controversial legislation? Is it the Fourth Estate's? Or is it the "side" whomever they are at the time, proposing the legislation to be able to clearly articulate and explain what it is they want to do and how it will be done.


It is then the opponents job to explain why they do not agree with the legislation and explain why in non emotional non perjurative explanations


Yeah, I know, I am a dreamer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whose fault is it? I'd like to blame the Fourth Estate. They are more interested in ratings than in news. Real news doesn't bring ratings. Rantings by people like Palin, and to be fair, people like Sharpton, deliver ratings. And ratings equals money. It's not about news, its not about facts, its about the bottom line. Period.


When a Palin or a Sharpton deliver one of their rants, the media lets it sit out there and act as if its fact. When Palin went on her screed about "death panels", it was picked up as "news" by news outlets, but very few then picked that apart to show that what she said was utter nonsense. Where the rant was torn to shreds and shown to have no basis in any kind of reality, it got limited exposure - folks that listen to NPR heard it, and folks that read non-partisan media watchdog websites read it, folks that read the New York Times or the Washington Post may have read it (if they didn't glaze right over it because they were sick of the "debate") but that is a pretty small subset of people. If you feed people a steady diet of pablum, then all people can repeat is the pablum - then you get people on Medicare at town hall meetings screaming "keep government out of my health care" - because the media reported the rants and not the facts. It was only after the health insurance reform bill was passed that the rest of the media quietly mentioned that the whole death panel thing was nonsensical.


I said I'd like to blame the Fourth Estate - but the people who are really at fault is us - the American People. We are at fault because we aren't demanding better quality reporting, because we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated by a media who delivers pond scum to us and tells us it's meat and potatoes. We are at fault for taking everything that some media talking head says as fact without checking other reputable sources (Uncle Bubba's Conservative Blog, or Aunt Emma's Liberal Blog are NOT reputable sources).


Remember a while back when it was reported that the Democrats booed the Boy Scouts at a Democratic National Convention? To hear the reporting on it (mostly from cable news by the way - especially Fox), you would think that the whole convention turned their backs on the Boy Scouts and booed. The other networks then had to report on the "story" and did some real digging where they found that the booing was limited to a small group of gay and lesbian delegates from the California delegation expressing their displeasure of the Dale ruling and that most of the delegates around them couldn't hear the booing let alone the Boy Scouts who were on stage. Had a reporter for Fox not been right there with the California delegation, it never would have been a story. I'm sure the BSA itself can relate after the "news" that the Boy Scouts booed the President at the Jamboree this year (where it also turned out to be a small group of people who happened to get caught on video - and not the whole crowd). This is the kind of reporting we've been conditioned into accepting as news - and that's our fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for Obama. Oh, wait - that was on the "Who is the worst president ever" ballot.


The "chosen one" failed to bring the Olympics to Chicago, and the World Cup to the US. Those were probably the only two positive things he could have done for the country, and he failed miserably. Don't those committees know who Obama is?? How dare they!


Jack Cafferty seems to remember things differently from Calico and gwd. You'd be hard-pressed to call him a right-winger. Thank God we did remember all that "crap" for the elections.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel he's failed at his great, self-picked goal of being a uniter and being a great compromiser between political factions.




Well, it turns out he's NOT moderate. He's been extremely liberal, far beyond what the great majority of Americans wish for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it turns out he's NOT moderate. He's been extremely liberal


Yah, I don't get this, eh?


Most of da liberals are disgusted by Obama, and think he's a sell-out to the right. Even some moderate libs I know feel "betrayed".


He followed da military advice into a more gradual drawdown in Iraq.

He followed the conservative line and the military advice into a major military buildup in Afghanistan.

He caved on single-payer health care and instead adopted a health care plan that came out of da Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's playbook.

He caved on business and bank regulation and essentially left da industry with only token regulation.

He never followed through on his "engage with Iran" rhetoric and instead has been pursuing a hard-line policy very similar to GWB's.

He's siding with the pro-deficit Republicans on the tax cut package despite strong democratic opposition.

In fact, it's hard to find a Bush policy that he hasn't upheld.


So I just don't get it, eh? Why do people think the fellow is a liberal?


Is it that some have gone so far to the right that we think da center has actually moved?




Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has also made statements about redistributing the wealth, enacted socialized medicine that was just found unconstitutional, wants cap and trade, wants to make reparations, apologizes to other countries, etc. Those are certainly not centrist policies. Since Obama has extensive military training and knows more about the needs of the military than his generals, he over rode them on troop strength requirements in Afghanistan. I just saw this morning that of the 1433 US casualties in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war, 803 have occurred in the two years that Obama has had the reins (source icasualities.org). Iraq was essentially over since President Bush's surge worked though fought tooth and nail by liberals such as Biden and Obama. Though President Bush spent far too much, Obama is an order of magnitude worse. Political realities have prevented him from enacting more extremist policies. He is not a centrist, he is a liberal.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Only one piece of the Health bill was tentatively ruled unconstitutional, not the whole bill. I say tentatively, because it will surely be appealed and eventually likely end up in the SCOTUS, very possibly with other parts of its whole.


But, as has been pointed out, do not expect the entire bill to be negated, as almost no one would want to eliminate the "pre-existing" part, or kids to 25, now that they are in place.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the war issue. I would have preferred that Obama either just pull out of Afghanistan or have given more troops than requested to bring the operations to a swift and decisive end. Having read about prior wars and lived through Vietnam on, it seems to me that wars should either be total warfare or we should stay out of the conflict all together. That would likely save the most US lives in the long run.


Extremely liberal is easy, Obamacare which was just found to be unconstitutional (I know that there will be appeals). Obamacare as enacted will eventually totally control a major portion of the economy. It will tell people where, who, and how their medical care will be given. It will gradually remove most of our choice in our care. That is extremely liberal to most Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, I agree with yeh, vol_scouter, about da use of the military. It should be the absolute last choice, and then it should be a full commitment. GWB blew it on both counts. Problem is, Afghanistan is now a nation-building enterprise more than anything, and makin' a full commitment to that is just impossible. But the president backed 95% of what da military wanted for its "full option" in Iraq, and that comes with casualties. GWB made similar small adjustments to the Iraq surge as well, and that came with casualties.


So how is one fellow doin' a "surge" conservative while the other fellow doin' a "surge" is liberal? Even though yeh might fault either president on the issue, I just don't see that as being a "liberal" policy, eh? Maybe the nation-building, I guess.


Yah, perhaps environmental policy has become a liberal thing, eh? Though I'm from that old branch of conservative thought that believes that bein' environmentally responsible is part of being conservative. Cap & Trade is a mess not because of tryin' to reduce carbon emissions or foreign oil dependence, it's a mess because it would be another complicated beast of financial regulation that would destabilize markets.


GWB spent $700M on TARP, plus more on auto bailouts. BHO spent $700M on stimulus plus more on auto bailouts. How is one conservative and da other liberal? Both let the Fed run amok.


And now Obama and the Republican leadership in Congress are goin' to add another $1 Trillion in debt through these tax cut-and-spend additions. He's not with the Dems on this, eh? Now these days I don't know if tax-cut-and-spend is liberal or conservative, I suppose. It's more in the "just stupid" category. :)


So I still don't get it. The fellow is so moderate he's wishy-washy.


As an aside, I have to admit I don't care for the ad that popped up here on Scouter.Com with the president wearing a hammer & sickle. Doesn't belong on a Scouting forum, IMHO.





Link to post
Share on other sites



The request was for 45,000 troops in Afghanistan and Obama approved only 30,000. By my math that is 2/3 not 95%. He should have sent 50 to 60 thousand troops or totally withdrawn. His response was not a conservative response.


President Bush was not a conservative and the republicans who over spent are not conservative either. Bush was a moderate. Obama has spent far more in one year than any other president from what I have read. That is liberal and not moderate.


Being a good steward to the environment is a conservative value. Cap and trade is not to care for the environment from what I have read. As you say, it is a mess. It will make a lot of people insanely wealthy on unsettled science. The current models and data did not and could not predict the harsh cold winter for the entire northern hemisphere seen last year. I have not heard about Asia but Europe and the US are having a harsh cold start to the winter season. If the issue were settled then the models would predict the winters that are being seen. Thus, cap and trade is politically driven to redistribute American wealth to the third world.


Bush was not a conservative but Obama is certainly not a moderate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...