The Failed Obama Presidency
The
last eight years have for the most part been part and parcel; a massive
exercise in greed and manipulation. From the highest reaches of government and
finance, we have witnessed excesses that were the norm back in the days of the
robber barons.
The
rampant abuses are reminiscent of an uglier time in our history; the arrogance
of wealth and power is now seen as the perks of being one of 'the boys'. This
arrogance is seen daily in our political leaders and the so-called giants of
Wall Street.
In
2000, George W. Bush was selected as the heir to the Presidency; just as in
some of Europe's oldest monarchies, ability was trumped by being a member of
the lucky sperm club. As is the norm in monarchies, one's aptitude or lack of
same only becomes a problem when one is called to perform above one's ability,
and as he have seen over the past years, he fails stupendously.
As
an electorate, we missed the opportunity to 'throw the bums out' and instead
chose to 'stay the course' and returned the same idiots to office and expected
a different outcome; a sure sign of electoral insanity.
Many
of us were criticized for our lack of enthusiasm for our elected officials, the
problems in government were manifold; unqualified people were making decisions
that would have a lasting effect on us. The Abu Grahib and Katrina scandals
laid bare the horrible truth. We were on a ship without a rudder.
In
2006, it seemed like we were coming to our senses, the Republican majority in
the House of Representatives was replaced by a Democratic one, but it was still
business as usual.
Which
brings us to the 2008 election, on the Republican side, it seemed like they
were all trying to bring us kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century
with their emphasis on more laizzes-faire
economics and a nativist turn that would have scared even the
Know-Nothings. I would not have been
surprised to see the retread of the Alien and Sedition Act of the eighteenth
century.
Then
came Barack Obama...skinny black guy from Chicago by way of Hawaii, and
Indonesia. A one term U.S. Senator from Chi-Town, he really shook things up. He denied the heir apparent the chance to run
for president (pissin' off a bunch of folks, among them Hillary, Carville, the
PUMA's, Chris Matthews, the Sunday Talking Heads, just to name a few).
November
4th, 2008 and January 20th, 2009 are days that will be
marked forever in the history of the United States; not only did we undo the
Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House of Republican, we also
managed to elect the skinny guy from Chicago, we also swore him in as the
forty-forth President of the United States.
Many
things happened in 2008 that made this possible, McCain and Palin, the Wall
Street bubble that had been threatening to explode finally burst, and then
there was McCain and Palin. I just can't thank that old' maverick enough!
This
brings us to the title of this post: The Failed Obama Presidency.
He
has been in office for less than ten days and yet we still have all these
problems to deal with.
·
Wall Street has not recovered the five
thousand points that it lost over the past two years. On the contrary, it seems
as if it has stagnated. The Masters of Ponzi, which may be a new post graduate
degree, Madoff, Nadel et. al are not in jail, they are under house arrest.
Roger Thain, late of Merrill Lynch spends over a million dollars to redecorate
his office. All this and more.
·
Universal Health Care has not been
passed...we who voted for Obama, must ask ourselves whether or not we have made a
colossal error in voting for him. It's called leadership!!
·
The so-called 'Stimulus' bill is still
tied up in Congress even though we own the House and the Senate. The fear of
being bold seems to have taken hold, now is not the time for the timid.
·
The Middle East in its current iteration
is impossible to maintain, the inability to see this problem as a human rights
issue is what is clouding the solution. Israel cannot maintain its territorial
integrity as it stands today; the risk of a nuclear confrontation is too high.
The Palestinians lack an honest broker that can be bold enough to suggest a
radical solution. A two state solution is not a solution at all, a negotiated
one state solution, in my opinion, is the only way out. It is a bold and
radical proposition that deserves a chance.
There is an element of
sarcasm in what I call 'The Failed Obama Presidency'; we've become so
accustomed to immediate gratification that we've forgotten how long it took us
to get into the position we find ourselves in. The issues we face today had its
origins during the Reagan administration, they were exacerbated during the
first Bush presidency and they were made worse during President Clinton's
'Third Way' when the DLC managed to turn the Democratic Party into republican
'lite'. The dismantling of The New Deal protections for workers continued apace
throughout the Dubya's administration and
culminated in what we are facing today, malfeasance on Wall Street, crooked
politicians, and ideologically driven opposition whose heroes are small minded
and lacking in their civic and patriotic duties.
The Obama Presidency
can only succeed if it takes the bull by the horns, this is what I voted for,
and it is also what the American people expect from the 'skinny black guy from
Chicago.
There you have it...or
not.
Update: The House passed stimulus bill along party lines.
Cross Posted at: http://betweentheheavensandthesky.blogspot.com/




Tain't gonna happen, dream on if you want, but it's a waste of time.
Snap to what happened today. Repubs voted to a man against the pork bill.
Dems are running for cover. Look out for massive dem defection in the house. They are up for reelection in '10. What happened today opened a lot of eyes in the senate.
Obama has lost round one and it isn't even February!!!! Talk about in over one's head!!! And the beauty of it is, the bill is public knowledge now for all to see!!! Just how much wool they were trying to pull over our eyes!!!!
January 28, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure you noticed, but the bill passed. And when it comes back from the House/Senate conference, it will pass again. And then Obama will sign it.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but your party lost in November. Big. HUGE. Get used to it.
January 28, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Renaye lives on de banks of de Nial.
January 28, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yes, and I'm sure it'll pass the senate. If repubs show the kind of unanimity as the house it will be the beginning of the end for this as an effective administration.
January 29, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will pay -- again -- in 2010 for offering up more of the same delusional "policy" ideas that got us to where we are with the economy, and with our (former) allies, and the rest of the world.
(Torture is illegal, always and everywhere. Torture cannot be made legal. Effort to make it legal is ALSO illegal.)
And while they falsely whined -- lied -- that they were being shut out of the legislative process -- they know what they mean from having done it to the Democrats when they were the majority -- they were intending all along to vote against not only the Obama stimulus bill, but, therefore, also against the vast majority of We the people.
We the people will remember that -- may even send them powered machinery with which to more swiftly dig the hole their in, and in which will remain.
Obama showed his class, and mettle: He reached across the aisle, even though he didn't need to. And the Republicans, hiding behind their usual delusions and lies, voted "to a man" against the bill/We the people -- and the bill passed anyway.
So long as you remain delusional, "Renaye"-of-the-pretentious-name, you will ignore that which you and your statistically insignificant minority has been told at least a dozen times, not only by Obama, not only by Pelosi and other Democrats, but also by the vast majority of We the people:
YOUR PARTY-BEFORE-COUNTRY PARTY L-O-S-T, AND WITH THAT YOUR PARTY-BEFORE-COUNTRY PARTY'S "POLICIES" HAVE BEEN YET AGAIN REJECTED AND REPUDIATED.
And why is that the fact? Because Republican ReagaBushitonomics are stoopid:
1. Spend all your savings,
2. Quit your job, and,
3. Your income will INCREASE!?
January 29, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like this explanation of Reagan's "philosophy:"
January 29, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you miss the bill passing without republican support?
All these current republican representatives did was seal their own fate in the primary of 2010 as younger and hungrier GOP newbies enter the fray. When the economy turns around, all of their primary opponents can point to this one partisan vote during a time of crisis.
The last vestiges of neoconservative blight will be wiped clean in 2010. Enjoy the pulpit while you have it, because you speak for a dying ideology.
January 29, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
January 29, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
As it always is until we all somehow develop to gift of seeing the future.
An educated guess, however, shows the trends going my way even faster as the ideologically-driven GOP leadership brought the country nothing but deepening deficits and a debt-driven economy these last 30 years that rewards capital at every turn and denigrates labor. Forgetting, of course, that most of their voters are in the latter category and would eventually wise up.
A change is coming to the republican party that will be every bit as transformational as Barack has been for the democratic party.
January 29, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama has lost round one and it isn't even February!!!!" My, my! Pardon my language, ReNeigh, but what the fuck are you talking about? When your bill passes, that is called a WIN.
"Look out for massive dem defection in the house." On the contrary, look for massive Repud defecAtion in your house! They have been selling you shit and calling it silver. And now they are naked in public, exposed as obstructionist con artists.
"Snap to what happened today." Yes, indeed!
January 29, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frog, this is not checkers. The game is much more nuanced than you have the capacity to understand.
January 29, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are out of your league, Renny. Tiddlywinks -- go ahead and practice until you get one into the cup, and then call Rush and tell him you DID it!
January 29, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I assume you're addressing frog up there.
January 29, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may be a frog, but I know how to play chess. My Kermit to your Miss Piggy!
January 29, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
ps - pucker up and kiss my tiny shiny green ass
January 29, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! You just insulted me and my porcine bros and sistahs. She's most assuredly not one of the pig tribe.
January 29, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you noticed how Spric and Renaye seem to have the same hitch,,,, in their pitch,,,, I'm shocked. Renaye.
And poor, late, lamented Spric.
Must be something in their meds.
January 29, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been hip to the similarity since 'they' arrived here. I asked one of them, (can't remember which for obvious reasons), when I first saw his/her/its comment if he/she/it wasn't the others brother/sister/single cell counterpart.
January 29, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, don't care for a rematch. Checkmated you so many times it ain't no fun no more.
January 29, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your dreams, maybe.
January 29, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, the Free Republic village is missing one of its finer citizens. Please go home -- mayhap your tinfoil hat is not set to the correct frequency anymore?
January 29, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Analog 8-Track in the age of virtual digital.
Doncha just love it when far-right lunatic fringe Blutos talk about "nuance"?
January 29, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
In what respect, Charlie?
January 29, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
See above. The far-right lunatic fringe freerepublic Obama hater.
January 29, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hit the "on" switch on your humor detector there, sparky.
January 29, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the lunatic fringe is laughable -- don't you?
And that freerepublic is hysterical.
January 30, 2009 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the New Administration is taking the bull by the horns. One week in and most cabinet nominees have been confirmed.
A new stimulus plan has passed the House and will soon pass the Senate.
The new Prez is personally meeting with members of Congress, several times and not just for show.
He has contacted at least five leaders in five ME countries.
Have heart!!!
January 28, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm glad you were being sarcastic, because by the time I pulled up the blog and started reading I had already built up a head of steam and was ready to rip you a new means of having waste products leave your body...
I can't remember the last time a President EVER accomplished so much in the 1st week of his presidency...
Whew...now I need to breathe in, breathe out, breathe in...
January 29, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You had me worried about you, stilli. I'm glad you've move away from the edge of the cliff. Stay away from sharp objects for a while, OK?
January 29, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, guys...I think I'm ok now...
January 29, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had the same reaction. :O)
January 29, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
stilli...thanks for taking the time to read the post through...I have been chastened by my betters that I should have announced the 'sarcasm' at the beginning of the post, but that seems to take the fun out of the enterprise...and should anyone ask...not only did I vote for the "skinny black guy from Chicago...My family and I worked our collective asses off in the middle of Florida (between Tampa and Orlando)...thanks again for the input and feel free to metaphorically slap me around when I get too high on my horse.
January 29, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reduce the font size.
January 29, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Done...and thanks for the tip...
January 29, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No no no. Write as your write. Start to listen too closely to others and you lose some nice spontaneity
And it is more fun to catch it later. I laugh harder that way.
January 29, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post Warped. I too expect the skinny black guy from Chi-town to take de bull by de horns. I hope he's playing chess to the Rs checkers.
January 29, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you...
January 29, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The great thing about being a Hillbot for Obama is I can say if Hillary won, all these problems would have been solved on day one :) Self-delusion is a beautiful thing!
January 29, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Nice.
And not related to your comment, but the larger post: All this talk of Obama winning/losing with regards to the bill seems a little premature, either way. Seems to me we won't be able to decide the victor in all of this until we can determine the efficacy of the bill, no?
January 29, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, but at the very least he won the battle for tomorrow if not exactly the war as of yet. I still think the guy is a Political Grandmaster of the kind we have not seen in this country in my lifetime.
January 29, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he still has a way to go to beat Reagan, IMO. Reagan had to charm a Dem Congress, and still pushed through a lot of what he wanted. (NOT a Reagan fan, but it's no accident that Obama's "Change" campaign had a number of similarities with Reagan's "Morning in America".)
Having said that, Obama has definitely earned his PGM (Political Grand Master) title.
January 29, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt Reagan is the another modern Grandmaster, but he used his powers of persuasion for evil. It's nice to see we can elect a good guy for a change
January 29, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agreed - I don't think we have a clue who the winners and the losers are until we see the stimulus plan in action. I'm glad a lot of the spending will be happening quickly. It took a while for the effects of Bill Clinton's tax hikes for the rich/tax cuts for the middle and lower income folks to be fully seen and it cost up some Dem seats in Congress in 1994. The Republicans want to pull another Contract with America, but their big thinking solution is to extend the GWB tax cuts ?!? They are a party in the wilderness.
January 29, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, if you thought Bill Clinton was Republican lite, how do you feel about Obama's initial proposal being 40% tax cuts to appease Republicans that voted against the stimulus bill en masse anyway? Does not Obama have his own "Third Way"? He and Clinton are more alike than you want to believe.
January 29, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, Obama is brighter than you.
January 29, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may be smarter than any of us, I donno. But one thing I DO know - Dij is miles smarter than you.
What's your trouble, dude? You raised in a trough or something? Missed the lesson on basic human communication? Courtesy? Manners? Any of these words ringing a bell for you?
Brighten up.
January 29, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is Dij?
Oh, sure, I've heard all those words. But let's get back to your "courtesy" of bashing Clinton and Obama . . .
January 29, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dij is "Dijamo," the person you were replying to.
Look, there was no "bashing" of Clinton or Obama. She's backed them BOTH, fiercely - and thinks they're BOTH brilliant. All she was pointing out was that there's some similarity between Clinton & Obama, in that both tried particular methods to work with the pathological Republicans in Congress, who then rejected those efforts at cooperation. And that maybe we should be careful simply slapping old labels (like "Republican Lite") on things Bill tried, because Obama may end up using similar moves - such as putting 40% of the stimulus monies into tax cuts.
JNagarya. Not everyone is at war here. Not every comment is an attempt to rip the shit out of Obama or the Democrats. There's only a couple of trolls, so concentrate your fire where it's needed. As for the rest of us, we're just trying to talk. No need to go in all guns blazing. Have a good day, dude.
January 29, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here on the seemingly tranquil plains of TPM, we once again get to enjoy the wild fauna rear its head from the tall grasses.
January 29, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tranquil or tranquilized?
Dude needs to slow down & take it a little easy, eh?
January 29, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for channeling my thoughts Dij-whisperer :) Clinton-esque is a compliment from me. I think both Clinton and Obama are moderates with different approaches. Clinton was a triangulator and would negotiate with both the left and the right. Obama starts out dead in the center and does less negotiating because he expects folks on both sides to act like adults and be reasonable. I just don't think the GOP has any intentions of trying to be reasonable (as demonstrated yesterday).
January 29, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We luvs you, Dij.....
January 29, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, Happy Birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 29, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
For one, Clinton was not "Republican lite": those who lived through the prior Reagan era/error, and the so-called "Reagan revolution," knew they were on something of a roll; twelve years straight controlling the presidency, and not yet discredited. Clinton was holding the line against the successful Reagan/Bush encroachments.
For another, Obama has been in office about a week; it is way too early to have any clear picture on how he operates across the spectrum, or where he stands in relation to the center. So it is offensive to lump Clinton with Reagan/Bush, to characterize Clinotn as "Republican lite," and to lump Clinotn and Obama together.
There are quite a few "P/progressives" who are too far to the Left to be that -- especially when the attack that which is progressive because allegedly not progressive. USually they reveal themselves as purists who won't settle for anythihng less than perfection, and its name must be Nader.
January 30, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
JNag. Look, I'm AGREEING with you. As is Dijamo. She's referring to the term the POSTER used- Republican Lite. she's says just a bit further down the page - agreeing with you - that calling Clinton Republican Lite does him a disservice.
As for me, I spent the 1980's, top to bottom, working to get him or someone like him elected, to replace Reagan - and precisely to stop the roll those clowns were on.
And yes, we don't know enough about Obama yet. If he's as good as Bill C was, that's ok with me. If he's better - then that's BRILLIANT. I'm no purist on this stuff, believe me.
January 30, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
January 30, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
These numbers don't add up, dijamo, and there are "tax cuts" and then there are TAX CUTS!
I will agree that Obama is doing a fair impression of Bill's third way by allowing some initial republican requests to attach themselves to the recovery package, but I hardly think his final destination is anywhere close to being the same nor do I think he would support many of the things the DLC stood for through the 1990s. Many of Clinton's more glaring "republican lite" policies didn't become apparent until Baby Bush started exploit the holes Bill left in the social compact when he was done being president.
I guess we will have to wait and see, but I am not ready to admit Obama and Bill are philosophical bunk mates until we see the outcome of Barack's presidency.
January 29, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
BRAVO
January 29, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if I'm following your logic Jason, you want the new "progressive conservative" Republican party to stake out its flag well to what some would describe as the "left" of Bill Clinton? Cool. ;-)
January 29, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am hoping they can stake their flag somewhere to the right of 1912 and to the left of 1980. That would be a good place to start.
I think Bill would fall into that spectrum somewhere, though it is hard to define exactly where since I don't think he ever had a chance to live up to his ideals or his potential.
I wouldn't call myself a fan, but I am beginning to suspect that his failures were due to more complex reasons than I have been willing to contemplate previously.
January 29, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry JEM, whether it's tax cuts or TAX CUTS, the most effective stimulus is spending according to economists (and my Kruggie). Obama's economic plan was a mirror of Bill Clinton's. Most Americans have a positive impression of Bill Clinton's presidency especially regarding the economy. I think we do Obama an incredible disservice when folks continue to slam Bill Clinton as GOP-lite because their ideas are very similar, even if their tactics were different.
That said, I think there are lessons Obama can learn from Bill Clinton's early presidency - namely that expecting bipartisanship from the GOP is a pipe dream. You can play nice, but they've got their eye on the next election.
January 29, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I replied to this once and got canned for too many links. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with this interpretation of our shared reality.
January 29, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they've got their eye on the next election, and are playing to an ever shrinking audience. For some reason, I'm thinking of the movie 'the King of Hearts' here.
January 29, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What bothers me here is the seeming need among "progressives" to beat up on Bill Clinton - lumping him in with the Bushes and Reagan as the architects of our doom, from which Obama is supposed to save us. Obviously, Bill had his failings as a person and a politician (intertwined, I would say), but putting him in the category of "Republican lite" is just, well, silly. More important, it's that type of holier than thou progressivism (anyone who isn't as pure as I am is a sellout and just like the other guy) that landed GWB in the White House in the first place. Not to dredge up the ghosts of the past, but can anyone here say with a straight face, as Ralph Nader did in 2000, that GWB and Gore were indistinguishable?
The parallells between Obama's bipartisanship and Clinton's "third way" and even "triangulation" are obvious. Let's hope Obama's execution is better than Bill's. And if we want it to be, perhaps Dems should ask why this need to savage our own?
January 29, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG, it's good to see you again. But it's really creepy for you to type precisely what I was thinking about Clinton - and about Democratic circular firing squads.
Now, get out of my brain. I like it roaming around unfettered in the massive space which it occupies. :-)
January 29, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair,
It's very simple: teh Clinton era peace and prosperity must be labeled an evil illusion in order to avoid cognitive dissonance when practicing the DLC is evil narrative.
In the end, it really is all about the red v. blue, liberal v. conservative narrative begun in the 70's and escalated by Reaganism. The DLC/Clinton bashers just don't want to let go of that polarity game, where a liberal must be defined according to 60's/70's definition of socialist-leaning liberal or isn't a liberal at all. The ridiculous part of this all is that the and Coulter's and Limbaugh's and Gingrich's built an emmpire on people left of center playing along with enforcing that polarity, and they couldn't have done that without their opposing playmates wanting to continue the game. Meanwhile, among the electorate, registration of independents who refused the polarity (but might have been amused by it or even sympatico with one side or the other on certain individual issues) continued to grow...starting with the Perot performance...
Me, I think you don't have to agree with all of iedological principles of the DLC to appreciate what it tried to do with its founding and what it did accomplish politically in bring some life back to the Democratic party (and I mean real life, things like getting governors elected) after it had been left for dead. They did what was smart for the party to do at the time to accomplish anything beyond what a devastated minority party could do.
January 29, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but passage of the bill isn't a "win" for anybody unless the bill does some stimulating and creates jobs.
And last I checked there was way too much in this bill on healthcare and unemployment benefits. I'm all for increasing spending in those areas, but not now. I was hoping it would be less about entitlements and more about infrastructure. I think only 5-10% of the bill is going to infrastructure.
The only way we're going to get out of this mess is to create jobs again. And that can't happen until the credit markets get back to normal.
The size of this bill DWARFS the amount of New Deal money spent in the first two years of the Great Depression, even after you adjust for inflation
January 29, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink