The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were a certified soothsayer!  My sincere apologies, of course!

Ah yes, the name calling begins. Your just like the others. I thought maybe we could have an level-headed argument without it leading to name calling.

What?

How is questioning your omnipotence, omnicience, and/or clairvoyance "name calling"?

She basically just questioned how you could possibly KNOW the future, which is what your quoted statement, above, seems to indicate.

[pilferk]

Do you even know what a soothsayer is?

Oh no, how horrendous, I called you psychic!  Stop the press!

Yes, and I am highly insulted by the use of "others" !!!!!   I hate being lumped in with those crazy ass Libs!  JK!

My point (while yes, wrapped in sarcasm-I don't deny), is that you have preconceived notions about what the administration will do and have already convinced yourself that you will disagree.  Way to keep an open mind.  Why would you wish anyone to fail?  Do you not want the country to prosper and rebuild foreign relations that have been trashed into the ground?

Are you currently a fly on the wall in the White House and are able to predict Obama's every move?  You initial statement was ridiculous, therefore my response was equally so.

I can't have a rational debate with someone who's already made their final decision and doesn't even know the outcome yet.

That bolded bit, above, is a GREAT question. 

Yet, as evidenced by that idiot Rush Limbaugh yesterday....there are people of that ilk out there.  They WANT to see this administration fail.  The rest of the country be damned.

Now, I'm not going to say Drew is one of those people...I don't know.  But the fact is:  They do exist.

[pilferk]

Hey nice to see you finally come around...This is something that has actually disturbed me for the past 8 years....but it didn't seem to bother most of you then...hmm what has changed since then?   

There is a fundamental differnece between HOPING and WISHING that the president will fail, and simply thinking he IS failing.  I never wanted Bush to fail.  I never hoped Bush would fail.  I just happen to think he did.

better get used to it though...the left wing media crucified Bush on EVERYTHING over the past 8 years, and now they are blowing Obama before he has done anything...Do you really expect guys like Limbaugh to let that slide?

Again, there is a difference between pointing out the emperor has no clothes, and rooting for your country to fall flat on it's face.

That is the problem though, people are not interested in whats best for the country...its if THEIR side wins and has power... while he made mistakes and was far from the best president ever, George Bush did alot of good for this country and most democrats will NEVER admit that...just like im sure Obama will do some good things that the right will never give him credit for...thats just the way it goes...But it is nice to see some of you as outraged as I am when an American roots for the president to fail....I will never root for Obama to fail...I hope I vote for him in 2012 because that would mean he did one hell of a job..

Did GWB do some good for this country?   Sure.  But let's look at the big picture:  He made far more mistakes, and left us in far worse shape, than he did good, or improved us.  That's not just opinion...it's looking at the truths of where we are.  You can't bury your head in the sand.

Can you point out WHERE someone actively rooted for GWB to fail, on these forums?

[freedom78]

Hey nice to see you finally come around...This is something that has actually disturbed me for the past 8 years....but it didn't seem to bother most of you then...hmm what has changed since then?   

There is a fundamental differnece between HOPING and WISHING that the president will fail, and simply thinking he IS failing.  I never wanted Bush to fail.  I never hoped Bush would fail.  I just happen to think he did.

better get used to it though...the left wing media crucified Bush on EVERYTHING over the past 8 years, and now they are blowing Obama before he has done anything...Do you really expect guys like Limbaugh to let that slide?

Again, there is a difference between pointing out the emperor has no clothes, and rooting for your country to fall flat on it's face.

That is the problem though, people are not interested in whats best for the country...its if THEIR side wins and has power... while he made mistakes and was far from the best president ever, George Bush did alot of good for this country and most democrats will NEVER admit that...just like im sure Obama will do some good things that the right will never give him credit for...thats just the way it goes...But it is nice to see some of you as outraged as I am when an American roots for the president to fail....I will never root for Obama to fail...I hope I vote for him in 2012 because that would mean he did one hell of a job..

Did GWB do some good for this country?   Sure.  But let's look at the big picture:  He made far more mistakes, and left us in far worse shape, than he did good, or improved us.  That's not just opinion...it's looking at the truths of where we are.  You can't bury your head in the sand.

Can you point out WHERE someone actively rooted for GWB to fail, on these forums?

I was going to respond to Bodhi's argument, but damn it all if pilferk didn't pretty much sum it all up for me. 

Yes...BIG difference between wanting a President to fail and pointing out that he's a failure.  Hell, I voted for W back in 2000.  Is there really a credible argument that I wanted him to fail after voting for him?  Like most, I was pretty positive about him straight through 9/11, Afghanistan, and the start of Iraq.  The handling of Iraq as a war demonstrated incompetence and lack of planning, which was troubling, and the later truths about why we actually went to war were among the more disturbing things I've heard.  Somewhere in this process, I shifted from a fairly conservative stance to a fairly libertarian one (hmm...probably around the time that gay-bashing became a key reelection strategy) and later to where I am now, as I began really thinking about issues rather than using "conservative" as a magic decoder ring to determine where I should stand on any given issue.  But I never wanted Bush to fail and, if he hadn't, it's tough to say where I'd be now on a political spectrum.  Needless to say, but I was actually bothered when Bush was booed at the inauguration.  I don't like what he's done, but I respect the office enough to have given polite, if muted, applause. 

As has been said, it's one thing to not support a policy and to want it to not be implemented.  It's another entirely to hope, after such a policy has been enacted, that it harms our country so that one party/politician will look bad.

[sandman]

i haven't heard anything about Rush's comments, so this may not apply to this discussion.

but wanting the president to "fail" means different things to different people.

Bush failed to get SS reform passed. you can make the argument that that "failure" was good for our country.

Obama wants to raise taxes. if he fails in that effort, many believe it will be better for our economy. 

[pilferk]

i haven't heard anything about Rush's comments, so this may not apply to this discussion.

but wanting the president to "fail" means different things to different people.

Bush failed to get SS reform passed. you can make the argument that that "failure" was good for our country.

Obama wants to raise taxes. if he fails in that effort, many believe it will be better for our economy. 

Here's the context:

RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication.  "Dear Rush:  For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency.  We would love to include you.  If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal."  Now, we're caught in this trap again.  The premise is, what is your "hope."  My hope, and please understand me when I say this.  I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds.  We've got to give him a chance."  Why?  They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000.  Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun.  I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half.  I know what his politics are.  I know what his plans are, as he has stated them.  I don't want them to succeed. 

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down.  And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him.  Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work.  So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at?  See, here's the point.  Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say.  Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that."  Why not?  Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?  Liberalism is our problem.  Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.  Why do I want more of it?  I don't care what the Drive-By story is.  I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails."  Somebody's gotta say it. 

You can find the FULL transcript, here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

There's sort of SOME of the sentiment you're talking about in there, but IMHO it's painted with too broad a stroke.  And while Rush asserts that the libs did the same thing to Bush when elected, I would humbly disagree.  The 2000 election was, to be certain, very devisive in and of itself.   That's true.  But after Bush was elected, and after the smoke finallly cleared, I can't remember hearing anyone actually clamoring for him to fail.  I heard complaints about the amount of vacation time he was taking.  I heard policy disagreements.  All of THAT, I expect (for example, I have no problem with the Repubs holding up the confirmation of Clinton, or postponing the vote on the AG).   But I certainly don't remember hearing anyone (reasonable) rooting for him to fall flat on his face.   And immediately post 9-11, I think you saw almost all traces of partisanship disappear (in point of fact, that may have been one of the largest issues...there was essentially no party of dissent).  Bush had it pretty darn good by and large, in that respect, through about 3/4 of his first term.  Only after the Iraq war started to turn sour for him and his blunders started to come to light did things start to deteriorate...and much of that didn't really come to light until after his reelection.

  Rush will mouth off, and rewrite history because a) the dittoheads won't bother to really think about what he's saying and b) it makes good, sensationalistic, radio.  But, again, IMHO...he went too far.  Past his normal bombastic bravado....

[pilferk]

I was going to respond to Bodhi's argument, but damn it all if pilferk didn't pretty much sum it all up for me. 

Glad to be of service!

Yes...BIG difference between wanting a President to fail and pointing out that he's a failure.  Hell, I voted for W back in 2000.

I didn't.  But I didn't vote for Gore, either.  I voted for Nader (cue boos, hisses, and thrown garbage).  I had issues with both candidates.  But even so, I was certainly rooting for Bush to succeed, after he was elected.  Just as I would have for Gore, had HE been elected.

  Is there really a credible argument that I wanted him to fail after voting for him?  Like most, I was pretty positive about him straight through 9/11, Afghanistan, and the start of Iraq. 

I was more luke warm (the vacation time, and his verbal gaffes, really rubbed me wrong...not "I don't like him" wrong, but "irk me" wrong), UNTIL 9/11 and Afghanistan.  I think he actually handled the AFTERMATH of that tragedy very well.  Better, IMHO, than he handled almost anything else during his presidency. 

Then, with the Iraq war..the doubts started to creep in.  But, even then, I was ROOTING for him to succeed.  Because if he succeeds, then the country succeeds.

The handling of Iraq as a war demonstrated incompetence and lack of planning, which was troubling, and the later truths about why we actually went to war were among the more disturbing things I've heard.

And that's when the tide turned.  Not that I rooted for him to fail...I just began to recognize that he had, and was, failing.  At least in my opinion.  I didn't LIKE that he was failing.  I wasn't HAPPY that he was failing.

  Somewhere in this process, I shifted from a fairly conservative stance to a fairly libertarian one (hmm...probably around the time that gay-bashing became a key reelection strategy) and later to where I am now, as I began really thinking about issues rather than using "conservative" as a magic decoder ring to determine where I should stand on any given issue.  But I never wanted Bush to fail and, if he hadn't, it's tough to say where I'd be now on a political spectrum.  Needless to say, but I was actually bothered when Bush was booed at the inauguration.  I don't like what he's done, but I respect the office enough to have given polite, if muted, applause. 

I agree.  The boo'ing was Bush league (if you'll excuse the pun).  As was the "Hey Hey Good Bye" chants.  Was I thinking it?  I'll cop to the fact my internal monologue was largely leaning in that direction.  But I would never show the man that much disrespect, no matter what I think personally of the job he did.  He DID it, badly or not, and that deserves at least some respect as he walks out the door.

As has been said, it's one thing to not support a policy and to want it to not be implemented.  It's another entirely to hope, after such a policy has been enacted, that it harms our country so that one party/politician will look bad.

Agreed, 100%.  If you want to disagree with Obama's policy decisions (of which there is  a grand total of 48 hours worth of time to examine), that's fine.  If you want to disagree with his policy proposals...fine, too.  But to sit there and say "I hope he fails", knowing what that means for our country?  Not that I had any for Rush to begin with, but if I was capable of losing all respect for the man, I would have.

[SLCPUNK]

i haven't heard anything about Rush's comments, so this may not apply to this discussion.

but wanting the president to "fail" means different things to different people.

Bush failed to get SS reform passed. you can make the argument that that "failure" was good for our country.

Obama wants to raise taxes. if he fails in that effort, many believe it will be better for our economy. 

Got enough wiggle room?

[SLCPUNK]

It's "Country First", until the Dems get the nod, then it's "Eff You."

[Bandita]

It's "Country First", until the Dems get the nod, then it's "Eff You."

Exactly.  Country first sounds great in theory BUT it also is something that comes from people who have the mindset that this country (the USA) can function without having positive relationships with the other countries on this planet.  I do not understand these people at all.  These nations that we shun have been in existence way before ours was and sometimes I believe they will be there after ours totally crashes into the ground if we don't do our damn best RIGHT NOW to try to repair the damage done. 

I have no tolerance for xenophobes and those who don't know a damn thing except for what goes on in a 10 mile radius of their home.

[sandman]

Rush is a master at linkbaiting. and people have fallen for it again.

he doesn't want any liberal policies passed. end of story. it's not even news.

[pilferk]

Rush is a master at linkbaiting. and people have fallen for it again.

he doesn't want any liberal policies passed. end of story. it's not even news.

Burying your head just a LITTLE bit, maybe, huh? 

That's not what he said.  He sort of insinuates some of that, but read the WHOLE of the transcript.  You're referring to exactly what he WANTS you to refer to...his tiny bit of wiggle room.

IMHO, what he said is pretty clear.  He tried to leave himself a bit of wiggle room...that's certainly  true.  But he painted with MUCH too broad a brush, this time, for that tactic to really work.  I know it's his "modus operandi" to generate ratings....but this went a bit further than his normal bombastic blustering.  He actively wished for our president to FAIL.  If Repubs (or you) had heard Olberman, or Maddow say that...hell, if ANYONE on CNN had recited those same lines with minor differences for perspective...about Bush, even 6 months ago when it was apparent his presidency was an almost complete failure...they would have been calling for that person's head for treason, practically.  But yet, with Rush....it's all misdirection and linkbaiting?

Qualify it or try to poo poo it all you want...and far be it from me to sit here and say he shouldn't or can't say it, if that's what he really believes.  But it's pretty damn crappy to wish for your country to fail......which is exactly what he did, his weak justifications be damned.

more from the transcript:

I'm happy to be the last man standing.  I'm honored to be the last man standing.  Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words.  I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why.  You know, I want to win.  If my party doesn't, I do.  If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this.  Why in the world, it's what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged.  Well, the dirty little secret is this isn't going to assuage anybody's victim status, and the race industry isn't going to go away, and the fact that America's original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it's not going to happen.  Just isn't, folks.  It's too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other.  Yes, I'm fired up about this. 

That's pretty succinct:  "Even if Obama's polices make the world a better place, I don't care.  I'd rather the world go to hell in a handbasket, since I (we) lost.  I only want the world to get better if I (we) win".

You can be against liberalism and not root for the PRESIDENT to fail.  You can disagree with his policy and NOT want the PRESIDENT to fail.  Or rather: reasonable, rational people can.  I guess that DOES leave Rush out of the equation.

Look, I'm not surprised by any of this.  It's Rush's gambit to try to make himself relevant.  It's one of only two options left to the Repubs at this point:  Be the party of dissent or the party of accord.  He's choosing dissent.  Fine by me.  There are better, far more productive, FAR less distasteful ways to do it.  But Rush...Rush likes "cheap heat".  He's got it...but he also made himself look like more of an ass than even HE usually does.

[sandman]

Rush is a master at linkbaiting. and people have fallen for it again.

he doesn't want any liberal policies passed. end of story. it's not even news.

Burying your head just a LITTLE bit, maybe, huh? 

That's not what he said.  He sort of insinuates some of that, but read the WHOLE of the transcript.  You're referring to exactly what he WANTS you to refer to...his tiny bit of wiggle room.

IMHO, what he said is pretty clear.  He tried to leave himself a bit of wiggle room...that's certainly  true.  But he painted with MUCH too broad a brush, this time, for that tactic to really work.  I know it's his "modus operandi" to generate ratings....but this went a bit further than his normal bombastic blustering.  He actively wished for our president to FAIL.  If Repubs (or you) had heard Olberman, or Maddow say that...hell, if ANYONE on CNN had recited those same lines with minor differences for perspective...about Bush, even 6 months ago when it was apparent his presidency was an almost complete failure...they would have been calling for that person's head for treason, practically.  But yet, with Rush....it's all misdirection and linkbaiting?

Qualify it or try to poo poo it all you want...and far be it from me to sit here and say he shouldn't or can't say it, if that's what he really believes.  But it's pretty damn crappy to wish for your country to fail......which is exactly what he did, his weak justifications be damned.

more from the transcript:

I'm happy to be the last man standing.  I'm honored to be the last man standing.  Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words.  I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why.  You know, I want to win.  If my party doesn't, I do.  If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this.  Why in the world, it's what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged.  Well, the dirty little secret is this isn't going to assuage anybody's victim status, and the race industry isn't going to go away, and the fact that America's original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it's not going to happen.  Just isn't, folks.  It's too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other.  Yes, I'm fired up about this. 

That's pretty succinct:  "Even if Obama's polices make the world a better place, I don't care.  I'd rather the world go to hell in a handbasket, since I (we) lost.  I only want the world to get better if I (we) win".

You can be against liberalism and not root for the PRESIDENT to fail.  You can disagree with his policy and NOT want the PRESIDENT to fail.  Or rather: reasonable, rational people can.  I guess that DOES leave Rush out of the equation.

Look, I'm not surprised by any of this.  It's Rush's gambit to try to make himself relevant.  It's one of only two options left to the Repubs at this point:  Be the party of dissent or the party of accord.  He's choosing dissent.  Fine by me.  There are better, far more productive, FAR less distasteful ways to do it.  But Rush...Rush likes "cheap heat".  He's got it...but he also made himself look like more of an ass than even HE usually does.

we're talking about a comment made by a bafoon shock jock of politics, and you're suggesting i'm burying my head in the sand? ok.

i'm not gonna get worked up or waste time reading too much into asinine comments made by someone who is famous for doing just that. 

all he wants anyone to refer to him his name. "Rush" is apparently in the news today. well done.

[pilferk]

we're talking about a comment made by a bafoon shock jock of politics, and you're suggesting i'm burying my head in the sand? ok.

Maybe just a LITTLE bit (and maybe just a little because I'm teasing you)...because you're letting him get away with something a LITTLE bit more henious than his usual crap.

And I agree, he is the "bafoon shock jock of politics". 

i'm not gonna get worked up or waste time reading too much into asinine comments made by someone who is famous for doing just that.

Actually, that's rather the point: To justify his idiotic comment, you have to "read into it", rather than just read/listen to what he said.  It's a bit more in depth than his usual MO..where the linkbait is framed by assertions that clearly make the hyperbole obvious.  Not so, here. 

I'm not really worked up...I just think it was sort of scuzzy, disrespectful, and distasteful. As I explained, I'm not really surprised by it, considering the source.  I'm not sure meeting my incredibly low expectations of him, though, gets him a pass on it.
 

all he wants anyone to refer to him his name. "Rush" is apparently in the news today. well done.

Agreed.  I think I said as much.  His reasoning for MAKING the comments, though, doesn't give him a pass, either, IMHO. 

[Layflats]

Win vs. Lose? - is there a finalized scoring system in government?

Here is a sure fire way to know someone doesn't know what they are talking about, when they say "I know what I'm talking about".

The whole system is doomed to fail if there has to be "an answer".  Everything is organic, and changing.  The strong role with the changes, the weak stick to the same ol', same ol'.  I hope the current administration is open to listening and solving problems as they become apparent.  It's too bad they have a lot to patch up soon as they stepped in.  You can't even blame past problems all on one party, everyone in government should be held accountable, the winners and losers.

PS- Rush is a waste of your time.  You are better served with Jerry Springer.

[FunkyMonkey]

 

Obama's Appetite for Reconstruction Tour Off to Productive Start

In recognition of Obama's work so far, and in honor of one of the greatest records of all time, we've come up with this redux of the Appetite for Destruction record cover. It's a little raw, but so was Guns N' Roses, back in their heyday. Up at the top is Michelle, with the Obama girls on each side of POTUS Obama. At the bottom is Lincoln, who replaces Slash on top hat.

http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/22/obamas_appetite_for_reconstruction.php

[freedom78]

Obama's Appetite for Reconstruction Tour Off to Productive Start

In recognition of Obama's work so far, and in honor of one of the greatest records of all time, we've come up with this redux of the Appetite for Destruction record cover. It's a little raw, but so was Guns N' Roses, back in their heyday. Up at the top is Michelle, with the Obama girls on each side of POTUS Obama. At the bottom is Lincoln, who replaces Slash on top hat.

http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/22/obamas_appetite_for_reconstruction.php

Didn't see that one comin'. 

[Bandita]

Obama's Appetite for Reconstruction Tour Off to Productive Start

In recognition of Obama's work so far, and in honor of one of the greatest records of all time, we've come up with this redux of the Appetite for Destruction record cover. It's a little raw, but so was Guns N' Roses, back in their heyday. Up at the top is Michelle, with the Obama girls on each side of POTUS Obama. At the bottom is Lincoln, who replaces Slash on top hat.

http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/22/obamas_appetite_for_reconstruction.php

Didn't see that one comin'. 

ahahahaha excellent!

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Obama's Appetite for Reconstruction Tour Off to Productive Start

In recognition of Obama's work so far, and in honor of one of the greatest records of all time, we've come up with this redux of the Appetite for Destruction record cover. It's a little raw, but so was Guns N' Roses, back in their heyday. Up at the top is Michelle, with the Obama girls on each side of POTUS Obama. At the bottom is Lincoln, who replaces Slash on top hat.

http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/22/obamas_appetite_for_reconstruction.php

Didn't see that one comin'. 

ahahahaha excellent!

Sexy.

[Bandita]

Obama's Appetite for Reconstruction Tour Off to Productive Start

In recognition of Obama's work so far, and in honor of one of the greatest records of all time, we've come up with this redux of the Appetite for Destruction record cover. It's a little raw, but so was Guns N' Roses, back in their heyday. Up at the top is Michelle, with the Obama girls on each side of POTUS Obama. At the bottom is Lincoln, who replaces Slash on top hat.

http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/22/obamas_appetite_for_reconstruction.php

Didn't see that one comin'. 

ahahahaha excellent!

Sexy.

Why, Gary I didn't know you cared