Shut 'em Down!

Reagan, Clinton and GWB all had experience as governors and I think it gave them experience in leading large governments that obama is sorely lacking.

GHWB also didn't serve as a governor and suffered many of the same mistakes obama has. He had quite a wealth of experience. But when the ***hit the fan the people he relied on to "fill in the gaps" buckled. Which cost him a second term of course.

Carter was governor of georgia, and no offense to Georgians, the pace of government (and life in general) there is rather slow. I think his hesitation to act swiftly was seen as weakness. Both men also suffered because they hadn't built their organizations through the party, so nobody owed them anything politically and the results were the same.

In the plus column

Obama is an excellent campaign organizer. His primary campaign in 08 was excellent. Let's not gloss over the fact that he even toppled Clinton which was no easy task. I would say it was the tougher fight than the one against McCain.

But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of actually running a government, he just does't have the skill set. He tried to not make the same mistakes as Carter and instead mend the fences broken during the primary fights but the people he relied on to help him run the country (Hillary Clinton is a fine example)were looking out for themselves and not his best interest.

The word "Incompetence" is thrown around a lot but I think it's more of a lack of experience and poor choices at key leadership positions.

Love them or hate them both Nixon and Reagan brought with them very conservative, pragmatic, goal oriented, results driven staff.
In conservative circles especially in big business there is a lot of focus on past success. You are promoted based on these success and fired just as easily for failure.

In the liberal sector, results don't matter. there is no "bottom line" everyone looks to in order to judge your results. It's more about your commitment to the cause or your loyalty to the party or your pedigree.

But that creates a real problem when it comes to dealing with a situation. Was Hillary Clinton incompetent for her handling of the begahzi crisis or was she just ill equipped to deal with it in the first place having had no experience in such matters.

In conservative circles she would have been fired but in liberal circles she was allowed to step down.

Now, if a republican like Nixon or Reagan had implemented obamacare they would found the BEST PERSON the most qualified person from the insurance sector to head the operation and if they faltered they would have been very publicly fired.

Liberals don't work that way. There is always a second chance there is always room for improvement it's not the do or die world of corporate profits... it's the feel good world of intentions.

That's government..

Ok so then how did Bill Clinton get some of the things right that obama still hasn't picked up on. And the answer is he hired some very "mean" people to do the dirty work for him. Look at James Carville.
Clinton had other priorities, let's say, but he left the "work" to some very ambitious people. He was also very concerned about his legacy.

In that regard, Obama doesn't have to worry as much. He already earned the title "The First Black President"

So whether obamacare works or not is irrelevant.

First, in liberal circles results don't matter nearly as much as intentions

Second, He already has his place in the history books sewn up.

Third, no one will ever hold him accountable for anything for fear of being branded a racist.

He's got it in the bag. it's screwed glued and tattooed.

The right can scream and tear their hair out all they want. Obama will never be impeached or held accountable for his mistakes. Period.
By conservative measures he was doomed to fail from the jump because he doesn't have what it takes to be president in the first place.
And obama knows he isn't going to win any of those people over anyways.

It's a fundamental difference in philosophy. pragmatic vs idealistic.

obama won when he beat hillary. conservatives are still scratching their heads looking at red and black numbers on a spreadsheet and failing to understand. He won when he beat her, he doesn't even care about them or clingers or birthers or tea partiers...

Was Kathleen Sebelius the best choice to head health and human services? Well that depends on who you ask. She was governor of kansas, she paid her dues politically, she comes from a political family. So in liberal circles, yes.

Has she ever built a website or worked in insurance? No.
So in conservative circles was she the best person to run obamacare, No.

do liberals care what conservatives think about her qualifications, No.

Will she be fired? No. Will she step down or be moved around? Maybe.

She made the boss look bad. If she worked for nixon she would be in stocks on the white house lawn getting pelted with tomatoes and never work in this town again.

But she works Obama, so she will be praised for her dedication and loyalty.

Obamacare won't work because it doesn't have to work, there is no measure to gauge whether it works or not. it wasn't designed to work and nobody cares if it works. As long as it looks like we cared enough to try it's a win in the liberal columns own log. Nobody that thinks like a liberal cares what the "bottom line" says or what the accountants say or what conservatives think.

Perhaps nausi, aman and king aren't ever going to understand what a liberal win looks like...

Let's try baseball terms. The final score of the game is
Team A 15 and Team B 0
and Team B was the declared the winner.
Team A lead all stats, strikeouts, bases stole, hitting percentage
and Team B was the declared the winner.
Team A lead the league in every category imaginable
and Team B was the declared the winner.
Team A won every game they played up until that game
and Team B was the declared the winner.

Because Team A has an offensive mascot to native americans and Team B has a fuzzy duck mascot and wears environmentally friendly uniforms so Team B wins.

Sorry about your luck Team A, have fun smashing your calculators

I agree they all outranked Obama in initial experience but from what we've seen of Obama in term 1, he was able to pass sniff test as President and hasn't made any Carteresque blunders. Do you think because Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska that she was ready to be President? Bush was the Governor of Texas and... we got massive debt caused by two unfunded wars while running tax cuts and setting up an entirely new Department of Homeland Security and the Medicare expansion. So much for that experience as Texas governor with regards to balancing the books.

Benghazi wasn't the Iranian hostage crisis no matter how hard some people want it to be. Obama came in during an economic crisis, was able to bail out and save the auto industry, salvage the housing balloon, weather a number of popup crises in the middle east and get the piece of legislation he wanted passed into law. All in all that is 'success' when half the government effectively stonewalled Obama. It hasn't been the usual political *** either but a fervent obsession with sticking to dogmatic positions while holding anyone who would dare think to be moderate with a primary challenge from a Tea Party wingnut.

Also not sure why'd you deduct points from Carter being governor of Georgia when Clinton ran a smaller state in Arkansas with a smaller GDP. If you want to get into personalities then of course Clinton beats Carter but Clinton is good at the theater of politics like Reagan was.

Term 1 for Obama was a complete success for the private sector and that's all that really mattered.



Again, not sure what you mean here because it makes no sense. HW was a Texas Congressman, head of the CIA, RNC chairman, Ambassador to China, businessman and the Vice President under Reagan so how much closer to the inner circle do you need to be? Being a governor is a plus in understanding how large government functions but he held damn near every level position you could get gaining as close to real world experience as you're going to get without being president. Who compares to HW Bush on experience? Seriously.

Where HW is similar to Obama is both had to deal with recessions and I'm on the record saying Obama would not be president right now if Romney hadn't waded into social commentary that took the election off the economy and onto binders full of women. Americans cared about the economy, still care about the economy and don't see their wages increasing. Obamas policies have jumpstarted the private sector yet left the public in the dust and the entire governments refusal to do anything for their constituents while greasing every corporate wheel under the sun is the collective problem of today's American politics.


Because he had young people with databases using science to target his potential voting blocs while the Republicans stuck to old models of capturing their potential voters while committing to being 'unphased by factcheckers' and living in a delusion. How is that business savvy? How is that *** smart at all? Coupled with the increasing message that the Republican party is a white-only party, Republicans have effectively handed Obama and the Democrats large segments of the voting populace unopposed.


And you don't think the Obama administration has qualified staff? Again, the very same policies and people behind the Bush administration are in key posts and many of his hand selected come from the world of high finance and the top private corporations in the world. As far as the business agenda goes, things are swimming along. This isn't some liberal/conservative mindset as you believe.

But don't take my word for it. Look up the backgrounds of all the people in those posts and glance their resumes. Tell me where Obama hired lightweights who aren't equally qualified to his predecessors. Where are the pot smoking liberals too busy wondering what color the sunflower petals really are to do the business of government.


Yeah... no.

Even if we take your assertion at face value, which I wouldn't, the goal of a bicameral legislature is to provide balance where it is needed and to fine tune legislation. Americans had the chance to shoot down Obamacare when Obama came up for reelection and they did not vote the man out. The Republicans have done nothing but crusade against the law, losing at every turn while millions of Americans remain without health insurance. What is the solution? Stamp your feet and chant 'America's doomed!'? In your portrayal, Republicans are supposed to be hard-nosed, results driven business types right? Well business types get ***done under pragmatic conditions not conduct ideological crusades and protest vote at every turn.

(Isn't that what liberals stereotypically do?)


Again, you're citing experience with Clinton as if she hasn't been surrounded with the best advisers like her predecessors or somehow severely lacked the capacity for the job. She didn't have the experience of a Colin Powell but hell, Powell could have been Presidential material if he didn't lie in front of the UN. Rice and Powell were both NSA advisors, Albright was UN envoy and Clinton was a two-term NY senator who also happened to have the ear of a former president and spent Clintons two terms immersing herself in politics. Benghazi is such an irrelevant blip on the map compared to the diplomatic mess that was the Bush years or even Albrights callous actions in Africa during Rwanda or sanctions in Iraq that led to how many dead? Right, lets keep talking about Benghazi. *whistles*


Yeah, no. The conservatives can't even excise their current liability in the Tea Party extremists and you expect anyone to buy this painting that you're selling? Both parties protect their own, protect their political elite and will fall on the sword only if forced into a corner. Political idolatry has no party exclusivity.


Nixon implemented the EPA and OSHA, some of the most hated portions of government from our modern Republicans and Reagan implemented an amnesty program. You imagine if that amnesty package passed today? Reagan would have been pilloried. Obamacare is reviled because the political atmosphere has changed into one where a program like Obamacare must fail to establish the current far-right political order. Keep ignoring the fact that its pro-business, gives consumers choices and was once favored by Republicans. Romney-motherfucking-care. Check back in 5 years when Obamacare is completely online, the sky isn't falling and the political skirmishing for the upcoming midterms is over.


And what has he done as first 'black' president? Nothing any other centrist president wouldn't have done. He's ducked being black for fear of being labeled racist and the community that rallied behind him has come to realize Obama is no different than any other president and he has no intention to do anything for their community. You'll sooner see Hispanics get their shake because at least immigration can be played on the national stage for points in both parties. If the Republicans were as business savvy as you say they are by default, they'd have capitalized on that reality to try drawing black votes to their electorate.

But then again, they can't stop disparaging blacks or anyone not a WASP for that matter. It's like a knee jerk reaction at this point.

Obama will be remembered as the first black president who did nothing for his own people who are still at the bottom of the societal ladder he was in charge of. If MLK and Malcolm X were alive, they'd be excoriating him on a daily basis both as a politician and as the inheritors of their legacies.


Obamacare is his signature piece of legislation, you're a fool if you think he doesn't care if it fails. Delusional even.


Many people have critcized the president already, including numerous noted liberals and scholars. Give me a break. What you mean is the media networks won't criticize him for fear of racism or the people in the tank for Obama already don't want Americans to see how similar Obama is to Bush and how similar Democrats are to Republicans. Obama is on the record as a tower of Bush policies who has avoided open war but has coddled and embraced secret, underhanded war through the NSA and drones.


No one in government will ever be held accountable because we exist in a justice system where only peons get imprisoned. Leaders will skate by, pardoned by their successors and so the cycle continues. Wall Street can rape the economy and what we get in return is victim blaming all while the common folk are rounded up, beaten, penned and throw behind bars to feed the prison economy. Any wrongdoing by the elite is seen as necessary evil and any wrongdoing by citizens is a grave offense against the United States.

The idea you think that somehow Republicans run the country like a business and hold accountability up as the standard of their policies is laughable considering how recent Bush II was. Your attempts to narrow down two huge political ideologies into a sound byte is simply dishonest.
[/quote]