This is in thought to a bloodletting that took place in another blog place. I know most of my readers are GOP-tilted, so I am posing this question toward y'all, but the 'other' side's comments are equally entitled.(I am choosing not to reference the other blog because I don't want to continue that fight here with a fresh set of combatants. I want to have a different discussion. And that blog author, if he's read this far, knows who he is by now.)
If Obama left office tonight, what would he have left behind that wasn't already started by the previous administration?
What long standing damage would he have left?
To say that 'we'll be sorry' after four years isn't saying anything. Because he hasn't yet done anything.
If the next three are anything like the past one, I'd say doing nothing is not as bad as doing something could have been.
28 comments:
This is actually an excellent way to frame the question. Obama has no legacy yet, so to suggest that his presidency will be regrettable at this point is kind of silly.
maybe that one of the benefits of electing a neophyte?
seems to me he's still stumbling around trying to locate the mens room to concentrate on an agenda.
I sense possible apropos between Obama's term and my blogging career, "Okay, after a bit of highfalutin literary interpretation with Tully: Miss Gino Yet?"
(: Seriously, thanks for your support, Gino. And thanks for chiming in!
What would he have left behind? On the policy front, I plead ditto to the above posts. Its the congress critters that have the real power anyway.
On another front he has clearly demonstrated why we need to think about adding some conditions for being president. Age and citizenship are insufficient. Have felt that way for a long time. In addition, the president should also have substantial management experience. Whether thru running a large city or state (mayor or governor),a good size business (Bigger than a partnership, smaller than coca cola) or as a senior ranked officer (general/admiral).
squeaky
squeaky: I was around a set of people for a while who sometimes tossed around the idea that only honorably discharged or active duty soldiers should be allowed to bear arms (now that arms are so ridiculously powerful and accurate) ... amusingly, I think I agree somewhat with them, but I really don't with you: while your suggested qualifications are practical, I haven't noticed that I really have liked what comes out of Washington with "qualified" Presidents, and would like to keep the potential field a little more open.
Plus I agree with Gino: an inability to move things too fast for public scrutiny (and potential disembowlment) isn't inherently a bad thing. Also, public bumbling and stumbling mean citizens are more likely to ask WTF: also good.
General musing: I wonder what would have happened if Nader had ever gotten traction ... even if he had just affected the national discussion enough to affect the decisionmakers ... dunno if I would have wanted him as President, but then I was pretty sure I didn't want Gore or Bush (Gore not at all, Bush slightly less than not at all).
One horrific legacy that Obama will leave behind, and I hope soon, is the notion that funds returned to the Treasury can be used as his personal slush fund--a la TARP. Another is the idea that unelected bureaucrats/czars ought to be making personnel/HR decisions for the companies so impacted.
A third; the idea that bankruptcy law can be overridden by executive fiat to favor the UAW and the government over the higher ranking creditors of GM and Chrysler.
Obama's general lack of credibility and honesty have ample precedent, sad to say, as do some of his spending priorities. However, the direct control of funds and companies are a new one, to my knowledge.
Bubba got all the good ones. He didn't set up TARP, but he's trying to turn it into a perpetual motion machine.
The good part is that he's focused a lot of attention on the federal government's ongoing depredations, which have continued in a bipartisan fashion for far too long. We might (emphasis on might) have a chance to address some of this in the next few years.
kr, your knowledge of arms is obviously quite limited. I suggest you inform yourself on subjects you have little knowledge of first, as to not look so foolish.
And, BTW, Nader is an idiot nannystatist.
squeaky, I hear what your saying but I reject that as much as I reject allowing a person to vote depending on the color of their skin.
Excellent points, BB & Mr. D.
....
We will have to wait to see what damage his racist SCOTUS appointment does to the constitution.
And how Obama has somewhat hired and fired business executives is quite unAmerican.
Obama's out of control deficit spending could seriously hurt our country.
It has already vastly increased an already overbloated and overcontrolling government.
And treating KSM as a citizen that has broken a law? WTF?
How soon Obama seems to have forgotten 9/11.
....
Gino, I guess you are somewhat correct, Obama hasn't screwed our country up nearly as much as he has tried.
Obama's efforts are much worse than his actual accomplishments.
KR, the trouble with limiting the right to keep and bear arms (apart from the law) to former soldiers is that the 2nd Amendment is intended to be a bulwark against tyranny. Now if you limit RKBA to those who have already sworn oaths to the government, you've eliminated this important function.
If you want to know why that's a problem, ask www.jpfo.org, which has done research demonstrating that all of the great genocides of the 20th century began with gun registration and confiscation from "unwanted" classes.
Couldn't happen here? That's what they would have said about enlightened Germany in 1925. No way the nation that gave us Beethoven, Goethe, and the Bauhaus could do that.
"If Obama left office tonight, what would he have left behind that wasn't already started by the previous administration?"
He would leave behind the deficits he created as opposed to President Bush's eight solid years of budget surpluses. He would leave behind a legacy of ineptness of not being able to get ONE program through the Congress while President Bush got Congress to do everything he wanted. I don't know exactly how Obama managed to run these deficits, because he hasn't been able to get one thing passed, but just imagine how much bigger they'd be if we let him run free.
"What long standing damage would he have left?"
He would leave behind a legacy of giving favors and money to big shot corporate bosses as opposed to President Bush's strict rules about making sure no corporate entity made profits through their government contacts. Under Obama the Supreme Court would never have decided in favor of allowing corporations free speech. Thank God President Bush saw to it that the First Amendment was protected. The Court would have never decided to take the limits off of corporate campaign donations and unfetter free speech if that issue had come up during the time Obama was President.
RW, you just mentioned Boooosh four times; let it go. Seriously, for your own sanity. BDS is a terrible affliction.
And, BTW, unfortunately Obama and the filibuster-proof super-majority have passed legislation, just not the "too-ugly-for-even-the-Democrats-to-swallow" bills that the President has tried to ram down our throats.
And, RW, what do you call your flavor of taxation without representation?
K-Rod I don't understand what you're saying. I'm saying how much better off we were under President Bush. I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.
RW, first off, I am not surprised you "don't understand" and that you are "afraid" and secondly I agree that we haven't seen this kind of malaise since Carter I. Bush, as Gino alluded to, started us down some wrong paths with regard to spending and over-bloated over-controlling government... but that shouldn't let Obama off the hook. Just where does the buck stop in the ObamaNation? Oh, that's right, Boooosh! (re: "...wasn't already started by the previous..."
It's not so much that we were better off a few years ago but that we are now worse off as a country today, under Obama's "leadership".
So whether you want to lick the boots of Obama or Booosh please show your work.
In God We Trust, all others must bring data
RW, are you man enough to back up what you said about Bush and Obama? Why not?
K-Rod, you just mentioned Obama four times; let it go. Seriously, for your own sanity. BDS is a terrible affliction.
Your knowledge of history is obviously quite limited. I suggest you inform yourself on subjects you have little knowledge of first, as to not look so foolish.
RW hits, indirectly and perhaps a touch sarcastically, at one thing Obama has done; appointed Ms. Sotomayor to the court. A McCain appointee might have been bad, but I doubt THAT bad.
RW, the subject of the post is basically Obama, there is nothing for me to "let go".
And, BTW, you are rambling incoherently.
As for looking foolish, you once again FAILED to substantiate that which you wrote.
RW, why aren't you man enough to back up what you said with some substance?
BB, was that Obama's appointment of a racist to SCOTUS?
Allow me to be man enough to back up my substance... I have SIX pounds of venison left from what I killed in Wisconsin this past fall @ Neilsville. Bigger than yours, no doubt, K-Rod. Little venison man. I recommend the ligonbery sauce.
lol... my work here is done.
well, that was fun...
you're welcome.
Seriously, I luvs me some historychannel throwbacks.
Ah... the good old days.
:-)
I'm not looking at the substance of this argument because I haven't the time. That being said:
K-Rod, I think you could have been less demeaning with KR. We should always look to what we share rather than what divides us (the latter of which is only two letters of the alphabet). Or if you are joking, I'm afraid this is just another example of humor not being communicated via the interweb.
The blog-administrator pro-tempura has spoken. I'm pro-anything flash-fried with a delicious batter.
RW is right -- Bush was pretty profligate with spending. Obama, at least until he is constrained, is substantially, almost exponentially, worse. I don't want to give either of them a pass.
Only six pounds, pffft, you gots nuthin... so I'll only pull out SEVEN pounds, just enough to win. ;^)
....
But seriously, RW, nice job on a successful hunt and good luck and safe hunting in the future. I try to get out once in a while... ...from mouse to grouse, duck to buck, goose to moose, and hare to bear. (Actually I haven’t been bear hunting, ...yet.)
....
Tully, sorry if the truth is a bitter pill for some to swallow; I don't sugar coat it.
....
"...almost exponentially, worse. I don't want to give either of them a pass."
BINGO!
Yes, K-Rod, I know that you're very proud of the fact that you don't sugar-coat anything. Great. You want a cookie? I'll be sure to hold the sugar...
Just the facts, tully, gots nuthin to do with pride.
I'm probably on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Brian, but I find I really respect his opinions and knowledge these matters.
I guess that's all I have to say about that.
Gino - Obama has been a disappointment in the first year, in a great many ways, but he HAS delivered on some things. I hope he can make progress in the next three years. For one, the stimulus packages are *working.* Expectations for him were so high, and he came into leadership of the country already crippled by the economy. That's not an excuse for failure, but Obama, as does every human being, deserves a measure of understanding.
Tully - I hope we see more stuff by you here, soon!
Squeaky - By that requirement, we wouldn't have elected GW Bush to state gov or then to Pres in so short a time.
Bike Bubba - We've had czars in government forever, and now that Obama is president, it's suddently a problem? Where was the problem with czars with Bush was president?
kr - I hope you don't take K-Rod too seriously. I really love that you looked to Nader with an open mind. That's better than I did.
K-Rod - You won't even engage in what the person is actually saying.
Also:
"as much as I reject allowing a person to vote depending on the color of their skin."
Ummmm...you are saying that people shouldn't be allowed to vote based on the fact that they are not white? What does that have to do with it? How about the fact that they are CITIZENS? Is that enough to allow them vote?
***Then a lot of stuff between RW, Bike Bubba and K-Rod happens...***
And then a conflict between men is resolved through hunting jibes. O-Kay.
Then Tully:
"You want a cookie? I'll be sure to hold the sugar...
LOL. I like that.
Amanda's comments are like a box of chocolate, you never know if she even gets what she says.
Example: flipping what I said by 180°.
I SAID I REJECT...
Do you know the definition of reject?
Amanda, why would you SUPPORT allowing a person to vote based on the color of their skin?
Seriously, if you can't comprehend my comment ask for clarification before you insert that foot.
Post a Comment