American Politics: THANKS OBAMA

[BigLutz]

Immigration reform irrelevent eh? Well as a Hispanic, I find that rather troubling. I mean, that would mean the Republicans basically abandon the base. Guess it's likely Rubio will be losing the Senate at that rate. So much for the big tent.

Unless the border is fixed it is irrelevant as it does NOTHING to deal with the problem does it? We passed reform in the 80s, giving amnesty to the illegals, and we did not fix the border, thus we are here again. What purpose is reform if it only leads to more illegals in the future because the border remains open.

I rather let the results from the last two gubernatorial elections decide.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/virginia/exit-polls.html http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/new-jersey/exit-polls.html

And yet we can look at the current polls and see trouble ahead for Democrats. Not to mention two states do not represent the entire nation

 

[LDSman]

There seems to be little outrage over this:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-the-top-we-cant-even-put-it-in-the-headline/

In an over-the-top and vile attack on Sarah Palin on Friday, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir argued that the former Alaska governor is an “outstanding candidate” to receive the same horrific “dose of discipline” that a slave endured in the 1700s.

I won't quote more as it was quite disgusting.

A conservative politician supposedly threatens to shoot a female reporter in a duel and people freak out. A news host advocates punishing a conservative female politician in a very disgusting matter over an opinion and people barely react to it.

Why aren't woman's advocacy groups defending another woman? They flipped over Limbaugh and Fluke, isn't this so much worse?

 

[Silver Soul]

So wait, are you defending the woman who said this...

“Our vets have proven that they have not been timid, so we will not be timid in calling out any who would use our military, our vets, as pawns in a political game,”

...While doing EXACTLY that one month ago standing with Larry "Obama put the Quran down" Klayman and Ted "Face of the Government Shutdown" Cruz?! Are you going to after the Veterans who actually didn't want her there?

Also, Fox News are not only angry about people losing their insurance... but people GETTING their insurance by Medicaid Expansion. The Ohio Governor (R) John Kasich is the unfortunate one having to deal with this from Laura Inagrahm one day after Obama praised him for that. So wait, is this Christie shaking hands with Obama all over again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/16/john-kasich-laura-ingraham_n_4288489.html

 

[BigLutz]

So wait, are you defending the woman who said this...

...While doing EXACTLY that one month ago standing with Larry "Obama put the Quran down" Klayman and Ted "Face of the Government Shutdown" Cruz?! Are you going to after the Veterans who actually didn't want her there?

And yet it was Obama who was the one who purposely went after the Veteran Memorials and started it all.

 

[Queequeg]

There are far too many topics about the Obama administration to discuss in a single thread...

However, I just want to point out that it will be DECADES before we see just how "bad" Obama is and how he ranks against former presidents. The effects of his administration's policies and decisions won't be felt and measured for many years and I would not be too quick to jump on him as "one of the worst president." I even remember one historian saying the South is still feeling the effects of Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction policies. Same with Bush, there is no doubt he had some very bad and just brainless moments and decisions, but how he ranks against other presidents can't be accurately judged for a long time.

 

[Maedar]

There are far too many topics about the Obama administration to discuss in a single thread...

However, I just want to point out that it will be DECADES before we see just how "bad" Obama is and how he ranks against former presidents. The effects of his administration's policies and decisions won't be felt and measured for many years and I would not be too quick to jump on him as "one of the worst president." I even remember one historian saying the South is still feeling the effects of Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction policies. Same with Bush, there is no doubt he had some very bad and just brainless moments and decisions, but how he ranks against other presidents can't be accurately judged for a long time.

Queequeg has a valid point. Republicans like to claim that Mr. Obama is "the worst President in history", but honestly, that's hard to believe when you compare him to some of the ones who were truly bad.

Like James Buchannan, who refused to do anything while the South was threatening to secede, in effect contributing to the Civil War actually happening.

Andrew Johnson, who was, like Clinton, impeached because Congress despised him, but unlike Clinton, was actually in danger of being ousted from office, because Congress was nearly united against him in this case. (Making him VP was one of Lincoln's biggest mistakes, clearly.)

Ulysses S. Grant, regarded as a "total failure as President", because the failure of the Reconstruction fell on his hands. (A few modern historians say he got a bad rap, claiming that if it had succeeded, he would have been regarded as one of the greatest Presidents.)

And, of course, Herbert Hoover, whose refusal to see the Great Depression as a serious problem only made it worse, paving the way for FDR, who pledged to actually get something done about it.

I could give other names, but Mr. Obama is clearly not the worst President in history. Clearly not because of the ACA. I've repeated before, there were people - Ronald Reagan included - who thought the same thing about Medicare way back when that a lot of folks are saying about the ACA now. The Republicans are trying to write Mr. Obama's legacy before it happens, and they don't understand that you just can't do that.

 

[BigLutz]

Honestly with Presidents its hard to judge them with the cult of personality that grows up around them two massive examples of this are Lincoln and Kennedy both of which who's deaths give them a certain aura of invincibility to their presidency.

Lincoln for example would have spent much of the rest of his term facing impeachment for his grave crimes against the Constitution, and more than likely the case would have succeeded or he would have had a serious black mark against his Presidency.

Kennedy was a rather poor to mediocre President who's inexperience almost brought us to nuclear war, who started Vietnam, and who did not have enough political muscle or spine to push through the voting rights act.

Anyway back to the modern day where the bipartisan bill set to fix Obama's massive lie has passed the House and is now set to go through the Senate. It is now up to Harry Reid and the Democrats there to fix Obama's lie and help all the people that have been hurt because of Obamacare.

 

[Maedar]

True, Lincoln was incredibly unpopular in his day, compared to his reputation today. (And suspending habeas corpus the way he did in order to protect DC would, indeed have gotten him impeached if the Civil War had not been going on and someone had been willing to charge him.)

On the other hand, Andrew Jackson, considered by many to be the hero of the War of 1812, would never even be considered electable today. He was an admitted bigot who hated Native Americans (engaging in brutal ethnic cleansing campaigns against them) and he also had a rotten temper.

So, the question is, Lutz, will Mr. Obama be regarded as one of the worst Presidents in history 100 years from now? Worse than even Nixon, who resigned because he knew he would have been successfully impeached and possibly faced prison time?

I can't predict the future any more than Lincoln's many supporters could, but I doubt it.

 

[BigLutz]

True, Lincoln was incredibly unpopular in his day, compared to his reputation today. (And suspending habeas corpus the way he did in order to protect DC would, indeed have gotten him impeached if the Civil War had not been going on and someone had been willing to charge him.)

Glad you agree, curious why you did not address Kennedy

So, the question is, Lutz, will Mr. Obama be regarded as one of the worst Presidents in history 100 years from now? Worse than even Nixon, who resigned because he knew he would have been successfully impeached and possibly faced prison time?

I can't predict the future any more than Lincoln's many supporters could, but I doubt it.

Worse than Nixon? Probably not as Nixon's paranoid clouded alot of good he actually did. That being said it will probably be based on how Obamacare turns out, if it destroys our health care industry or gets repealed then he will be looked on as one of the worst Presidents. If not he will probably be seen as a rather mediocre President.

 

[101stkillah]

Glad you agree, curious why you did not address Kennedy



Worse than Nixon? Probably not as Nixon's paranoid clouded alot of good he actually did. That being said it will probably be based on how Obamacare turns out, if it destroys our health care industry or gets repealed then he will be looked on as one of the worst Presidents. If not he will probably be seen as a rather mediocre President.

Every President has their screw-up. How well they handle the screw-up is the question. Reagan actually committed sins as bad as Obama in Benghazi, Nixon in Watergate, and Carter with the hostages, yet he is remembered favorably. I think Obama will indeed go down the same path as Carter if his Obamacare fails; a man who was seen as revolutionary upon entry to office, but quickly burnt out and fizzled.

We just have to explain to our sons and daughters why we voted for a mediocre president twice

 

[Maedar]

Worse than Nixon? Probably not as Nixon's paranoid clouded alot of good he actually did. That being said it will probably be based on how Obamacare turns out, if it destroys our health care industry or gets repealed then he will be looked on as one of the worst Presidents. If not he will probably be seen as a rather mediocre President.

Lutz, it's not going to be repealed. I fail to see any way that will ever happen at this point. Not unless the Republicans can convince sixty Senators to bring a bill to repeal it up for vote, then at least 51 to vote for AND the President to sign it.

The House Republicans aren't even pretending it's possible to convince him anymore.

Oh, and 101? Whenever I ask someone who voted for Nixon why he did so, he changes the subject - fast.

 

[BigLutz]

Lutz, it's not going to be repealed. I fail to see any way that will ever happen at this point. Not unless the Republicans can convince sixty Senators to bring a bill to repeal it up for vote, then at least 51 to vote for AND the President to sign it.

The House Republicans aren't even pretending it's possible to convince him anymore.

Well lets look at what those at the National Journal say?

Despite the White House's protestations, 62.4 percent of the House voted for Michigan GOP Rep. Fred Upton's legislation (261-157), just shy of the two-thirds necessary to override a veto. And consider the House Democrats who voted against Upton's bill but nonetheless released harsh statements criticizing Obamacare. Maryland Rep. John Delaney, in a statement, wrote: "The problem we have currently is that the Affordable Care Act is not working." Added Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick: "The stunning ineptitude of the ACA marketplace rollout is more than a public relations disaster. It is a disaster for the working families in my Arizona district who badly need quality, affordable health care." Add them into the mix -- the dozens more members who were poised to split with the president until his face-saving press conference -- and you've got all but the hardy Obama loyalists who could end up bolting if the political environment doesn't improve.

Democrats are in better shape on the Senate side, but not by as much as conventional wisdom suggests. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will do everything in his influence to protect the president — and block embarrassing legislation from being voted on — but not if it means he’ll be losing his majority gavel next year. There are 21 Democratic held-seats up in 2014, with 17 Democratic senators running for re-election. Of those 17, 10 are running in states where Obama won less than 55 percent of the vote, approximately the baseline of where House Democrats began splitting with the president on the Upton vote. Excluding Reid, an additional 15 Democrats aren’t up in 2014, but represent battleground (< 55% Obama) states where support of the law could become a long-term burden. And then there's California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has emerged as a surprising blue-state critic of the law, retiring Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who famously predicted the implementation was shaping up to be a "train wreck," and retiring moderate South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson.

To overcome a veto, Republicans would need 22 of those 28 winnable votes. Right now, they wouldn't come close. But Reid and the White House may end up relying on swing-state Democrats like Claire McCaskill and Bob Casey to protect the law. If the political mood doesn't improve in short order, will they want to be in that position? And if Republicans retake the Senate in 2015, the political momentum for repeal would only grow.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/why-obamacare-is-on-life-support-20131118

Obamacare has several massive landmines ahead, and any one of them could cause Democrats to start scrambling.

 

[Silver Soul]

You have to take account on the opposing party doing his terms. We got a record number of filibusters including one bill that was presented AND then filibustered by a certain Senate Minority Leader, 43 attempts to repeal the ACA even if it was ruled constitutional, the Tea Party movement which peaked in 2010 only to lose more seats in later elections, blatant agenda to make the President only one-term, and the first government shutdown since 1995. Let history judge that.

 

[BigLutz]

You have to take account on the opposing party doing his terms. We got a record number of filibusters including one bill that was presented AND then filibustered by a certain Senate Minority Leader, 43 attempts to repeal the ACA even if it was ruled constitutional, the Tea Party movement which peaked in 2010 only to lose more seats in later elections, blatant agenda to make the President only one-term, and the first government shutdown since 1995. Let history judge that.

He also started off with the most lopsided Congress almost any President ever had and squandered it away. His foreign policy is a failure and the only large piece of legislation to his name is a Health Care law that could be gutted or repealed. History would not look too kindly on that.

 

[Maedar]

Overriding a Presidential veto??

Okay, let's see. There have been 2564 times in the history of the United States where a President has used his authority to veto, and 110 times where it has been overridden, meaning the President wins... 96% of the time.

By the way, here's some fun facts about vetoes:

Most presidential vetoes: Franklin D. Roosevelt (635, he was in office 12 years anyway)
Fewest presidential vetoes: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, James A. Garfield (None, although Harrison and Garfield only served a short time before dying.)
Most vetoes in a single complete term: Grover Cleveland, first term, (414)
Most vetoes in two complete terms: Grover Cleveland (584)
Fewest vetoes in a single complete term: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe (First Term), John Quincy Adams, George W. Bush (First Term) (none)
Fewest vetoes in two complete terms: Thomas Jefferson (none)
Most vetoes in a single congressional session: Grover Cleveland, 50th United States Congress (212)
Most veto overrides by congress: Andrew Johnson (15)

By the way, Mr. Obama has only done so twice.

In other words, Lutz, it rarely happens.

Problem is, Lutz, the odd thing is, ever since Mr. Obama has taken the oath, Republicans have been using words that rarely ever come into play which are unlikely ever to be used. These words include:

"Impeach". This has happened to an elected official only 20 times in American history, and eight ended in acquittal. (Two of those eight were the only two times it happened against a President. With Mr. Obama, there isn't even a valid reason, so it seems unlikely.)

"New Amendment". The Republicans seem to want to add so many new Amendments to the Constitution, thinking they can change the document as easy as they can change a tire. Ask the supporters of the ERA; it doesn't work like that. The last new Amendment was the 27th, added in 1992. (And get this, it was first proposed in 1789; it took 203 whole years for this Amendment to succeed.

"Succession". This only happened once in the history of the United States, and what did it cause? The Civil War, which caused more American deaths than any other war, a bloody, violent conflict, and a complete failure that caused the South's economy to collapse. You'd think that the word "succession" would, as a result, be a reviled word that would strike fear into the hearts of historians, but no. Some people are actually bringing it up again, because they didn't learn.

Lutz, being loyal and being optimistic is one thing, but sometimes, you have to be realistic. And by the way, that vote that came 22 votes away from two thirds? It wasn't even a vote to repeal the ACA.

 

[BigLutz]

Is it rare? Yes but rarely has a party been put in such a perilous position we have already seen Democratic defections and we will see more as this gets worse

 

[LDSman]

Problem is, Lutz, the odd thing is, ever since Mr. Obama has taken the oath, Republicans have been using words that rarely ever come into play which are unlikely ever to be used. These words include:

"Impeach". This has happened to an elected official only 20 times in American history, and eight ended in acquittal. (Two of those eight were the only two times it happened against a President. With Mr. Obama, there isn't even a valid reason, so it seems unlikely.)

I seem to recall many calls for Bush to be impeached.

"New Amendment". The Republicans seem to want to add so many new Amendments to the Constitution, thinking they can change the document as easy as they can change a tire. Ask the supporters of the ERA; it doesn't work like that. The last new Amendment was the 27th, added in 1992. (And get this, it was first proposed in 1789; it took 203 whole years for this Amendment to succeed.

Democrats do they same thing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2874902/posts
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...nal-amendment-disposing-of-electoral-college/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Constitutional-Amendment-to-Limit-Free-Speech

"Succession". This only happened once in the history of the United States, and what did it cause? The Civil War, which caused more American deaths than any other war, a bloody, violent conflict, and a complete failure that caused the South's economy to collapse. You'd think that the word "succession" would, as a result, be a reviled word that would strike fear into the hearts of historians, but no. Some people are actually bringing it up again, because they didn't learn.

Usually it isn't the Republican Party saying that. It's some kook group that gets ignored.

Lutz, being loyal and being optimistic is one thing, but sometimes, you have to be realistic. And by the way, that vote that came 22 votes away from two thirds? It wasn't even a vote to repeal the ACA.

Considering how bad Obamacare is doing so far, why are you being so optimistic and loyal to Obama?

 

[Maedar]

We shall see, Lutz. But I'm putting my money on the President, because I always go with the odds. After all, there were plenty of Republicans who have said publically that they would have voted for the clean bill to end the shutdown quickly if Boehner had quickly put it up to vote.

Oh, and one scandal against the President has just been axed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/supreme-court-nsa_n_4295878.html

With the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case on this, the issue is pretty much dead.

Considering how bad Obamacare is doing so far, why are you being so optimistic and loyal to Obama?

As I tell everyone else who asks that, he's better than the alternative.

I seem to recall many calls for Bush to be impeached.

Not as many, and those guys were just as crazy.

 

[BigLutz]

Lets look at the odds here, right now it looks like Upton or Landrieu'a bill passes at that point rates skyrocket the Obamacare market crashes and the employers start looking for a way out enmass what are the odds of the law surviving then?

 

[Maedar]

For either bill to pass, the market would have to crash before either bill reached the Senate, meaning they've got, I believe, two and a half weeks before the House goes on vacation again. And the DJIA just broke a new record high. So I'd say the odds are getting slimmer.

After all, Lutz, the Republican doomsayers have been warning us of a market crash ever since 2008, and the market just climbs higher and higher. It's never even come close to one of its top ten one-day loses in all that time. It's all wishful thinking by folks who want an economic crisis to blame the President on, leftover hopes by the Tea Party members who focused all their energy on a blatant and now-failed goal to make the President a one-termer.

They want a huge crisis or scandal to blame on him but... They just can't find one.

They bring up stuff like Benghazi, but it doesn't work, and I'll tell you why:

How many Presidents have been accused of election fraud? Answer: All of them.

How many Presidents have been accused of treason or other high crimes. All of them.

How many Presidents have been accused of adultery. All of them, even Buchannan. And most were accused of far worse crimes of that nature. (I'm sure I don't have to elaborate.)

Listing the untrue accusations made against every single President would take all day. They're just louder against Mr. Obama, but no truer than the ones from John Adams on down.