Obamas honeymoon over?Follow

What you are apparently blind to is that there's a difference between someone doing things you like or don't like, and someone doing something "well". Like or dislike Bush, he didn't have problems with his staff going in 5 different directions at the same time. He didn't have problems filling what should be simple executive posts. He didn't have one member of his staff saying one thing in the morning, and another saying the exact opposite in the afternoon. And while I'm sure you think all of his people were lying bastards, I can't recall a single incident in which a cabinet secretary made a statement one day, and then had to completely reverse his statement the very next day because it was so easily demonstrably false. But not just that, also a senior staff member *and* a couple members of his own party in Congress. All in the first couple months on the job.



Say what you will about Bush, he pointed his white house in a direction and they all went that way. Obama seems to be standing in the middle of a crowd of people asking "Ok. What do you guys think we should do?". He's not leading. He's trying to compromise with his own staff and his own party. I know that's a component of his personality that helped win the election, but you can't run an executive office that way.

He needs to start leading. And I say this not as a partisan trying to paint Obama as a horrible president, but as a citizen of the US concerned that the man running the most important office in that country isn't just making decisions that I may not agree with, but doesn't appear to be in control of his own office. I believe that this is vastly worse than any partisan issues at hand.

You're completely right of course. His administration had no problem maintaining a position that was demonstrably false.

Way to miss the point. You disagreed with the policies of the Bush administration. Congratulations! You're a special snowflake.


This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with the policies and agenda of the office. It's about how well the office is operating. And so far the Obama administration is floundering. No amount of you loving what he wants to do should remove the fact that he's doing it badly.

BushCo handed him a giant stinking steaming festering ****.

I think 'fumbling' would've been a better word.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the economic numbers. I'm not saying this because of any specific agenda issue. I'm talking purely about the amount of zigzagging his own administration has been doing. I'm talking about his difficulty getting some pretty key positions filled (like a whole ton of sub-cabinet Treasury positions, which would seem to be important given the afore-mentioned ****). I'm talking about staff who can't keep their own message straight from morning to mid-afternoon.



You're correct. Floundering just implies being in a bad situation without necessarily denoting blame or incompetence. Fumbling is a much much better word...

Yet you brought in the idea of him being handed a "giant stinking steaming festering ****". Certainly seems like you're looking at his actions in that context.



Absolutely. Have I once mentioned a single specific agenda position with regard to my statements about the Obama administration? Nope. You did. Others have. I did not. I've bee pointing to amateur mistakes made in message and handling of the office in general. I've talked about mixed messages coming from his staff. I've talked about failures to fill executive posts. I've talked about problems with a number of people he has picked for posts.


My argument here is that he appears to be relying far far too much on others to make decisions. He's trying to please too many different groups and ultimately failing to please any of them. He needs to lead. He needs to pick a direction and go. Instead, it's almost like his White House is running by committee. Worse, the committee seems to be made up of different factions within the Dem party who all want to have a bigger slice of the political pie.


None of this has *anything* at all to do with my personal opinion of his politic or the specific direction of his policies. I tend to disagree with those too, but that's not what I'm talking about in this thread. He's been all over the map so far. He makes a big announcement about how lobbyists wont be allowed, and then appoints several. Then his staff first tries to deny it, then insists that "these" lobbyists didn't count, then he finally has to make a statement saying basically that he broke his own rule, but it was ok to do it this one time. He makes a big deal about how earmarks wont be tolerated, and then signs a bill with more pork than anything we've seen in like 20 years (8% of a 400+ Billion dollar budget bill was pork). Again. He gives an excuse that his policy is sound, but he didn't apply it this time, and then promises that he will apply it in the future... Um... Sure!

Those are the kinda of missteps that make one think there's no one piloting the boat so to speak. He's making promises, then his staff breaks them, then they try to cover it up, that doesn't work (it never does), and he has to go on TV with yet another Mea Culpa. His staff seems to be failing repeatedly to do even the most basic vetting of the nominees they're handing him. I'm not sure if that's just incompetence, or if there are some real fights going on in the Dem bullpen that the general public just isn't aware of. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they aren't actually incompetent, which means that decisions like appointing a Treasury Secretary who's managed to forget to pay his own taxes had a lot more to do with someone's political plans than finding the correct guy for the job. We can speculate about all the other vacancies, but I'd suspect that there is similar political wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes as well.


You expect legislatures to spend some time jockeying around for committee positions and electing leaders and whatnot early in a term. You do *not* expect that sort of thing going on in the executive branch. Yet that appears to be what's happening right now. And that is the direct result of the guy sitting in the Oval Office not taking adequate control of the situation.

You're writing an aweful lot about polling and whatever. I guess my question would be; who cares?

Oh and I love how you misunderstand someone, or are arguing a different point, realize that, and then suddenly try to make it their fault. It makes my day every time.

Bwahahaha

I thought it was lurching.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2009 11:50pm by Xsarus

.

Edited, Mar 24th 2009 12:50am by Jophiel

Meh, I decided it wasn't worth it. If Gbaji wants to be self-assured that Obama is flailing and tanking and eating his shoes or something, I don't really have the vested interest in futilely trying to convince him otherwise. Maybe I'll put more effort into it closer to 2012 when it'd matter

I'm totally not voting for Obama in 2016

Wich one?

Actually, we argued about American Idol. That chick from last week was ROBBED!

Er? What self-assured anything?

Gwynn posted an article suggesting that Obama's massive popular support may be weakening as a result of the AIG debacle (among others). You all jumped up and insisted that "It's not so!!!", and have been running around trying to prove that Obama is just as popular and wonderful and messianic as he ever was.


And I'm the nutty one suddenly? Lol... You guys are practically neurotic. So worried that anyone might perceive a reduction in the popularity of your favorite FuhrerPresident that you viciously attack anyone who doesn't also leap to his defense. It's hilarious really.