August 8, 2010

The Trouble with Obama (and Don't Forget His Legislative Enabler)

Monique Chartier

Joe Bernstein articulates it under Justin's post.

My objection to him is simple-he's a left wing ideologue who's made bad appointments and seems to not be competent and experienced enough for the job.

I would not argue, only amplify: President Obama is leading the charge on some really bad policies. Government take-over of our healthcare system; a willful disregard for our sovereignty via amnesty for undocumenteds and a refusal to control our borders; a pointless war on fossil fuels (and, therefore, a war on basic items like heat, AC, lights and most vehicles, not to mention, in the process, our wallets); spending beyond the wildest dreams of an inebriated sailor [edit: who, as Warrington correctly points out, at least spends his or her own money]; higher taxes.

Heavily complicit in all of this is Congress with, we should make careful note, Rhode Island's delegation whole-heartedly backing all of these bad rotten government initiatives. In fact, none would ever see the light of day were it not for Congress, which solely possesses the power to reject or implement them.

The trend of the president's approval rating indicates that Joe and I are not the only ones who object to the actualization of Barack Obama's presidency. It is mete also that his accomplice faces a reckoning at the polls on November 2. Indeed, though he goes on to make the case that the failure stemmed from an unwillingness to tack sufficiently leftwards, Robert Reich interestingly points out that it is the president's legislative agenda which now threatens the continued viability of both his own reelection and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

The President may have a fight on his hands even to hold on to what he’s already achieved because his legislative successes have been large enough to fuel strong opposition but not big enough to strengthen his support. The result could be disastrous for him and congressional Democrats. ...

A stimulus too small to significantly reduce unemployment, a TARP that didn’t trickle down to Main Street, financial reform that doesn’t fundamentally restructure Wall Street, and health-care reforms that don’t promise to bring down health-care costs have all created an enthusiasm gap. They’ve fired up the right, demoralized the left, and generated unease among the general population.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

"spending beyond the wildest dreams of an inebriated sailor;"

In this case the analogy impugns drunken sailors, they are spending their own money.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at August 8, 2010 1:48 PM

{Robert Reich interestingly points out that it is the president's legislative agenda which now threatens the continued viability of both his own reelection and a Democrat-controlled Congress.}

Sounds to me like principle is winning over politics in Obama's administration. Instead of tailoring policy to generate better poll results they are forging ahead with an agenda however unpopular with those afraid and nervous about their economic future. It's called leadership and is usually not recognized as such at the time it is exercised. The polls also mirror in effect the state of the economy as a snapshot in time. It would be interesting to see how close disaproval of any president matches uncertainity or alarm about the economy among the public at any given time. No insult intended for you or Joe , but I think I'll continue to read the comments and editorials of economists when I wish to be informed in this area. You go right ahead and cherry pick the polls that make you feel good.

Posted by: Phil at August 8, 2010 2:02 PM

Robert Reich, hmh, used to be a neighbor. Seems to me he bought his house in Cambridge with the proceeds of his wife's sex discrimination suit against Harvard.

He was also part of Clinton's "the conversation". Their name for an ongoing discussion among the Rhodes Scholar "old boys" about how America should be run.

I always wondered how he became an "economist", he has no academic background in it. That is why he is always short on metrics.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at August 8, 2010 2:39 PM

There's a common thread through all of Obama's mistakes: they come when he listens to Rahm Emanuel. Just like all the mistakes Hilary Clinton made when she listened to Terry McAuliffe.
This is precisely why liberals are having problems with Obama. They did not vote for him to have tawdry Karl Rove wanna-bes dictating policy.
Keith Olbermann may be talking about Glenn Beck when he busts out the Lonesome Rhodes reference, but that can just as easily be applied to Emanuel, given his contempt for the people who hopped on the Obama train first.

Posted by: rhody at August 8, 2010 4:25 PM

Holy sh*t-Rhody-you and I actually dislike the same turd,but tell me this-why did Obama load up on Clintonistas when if he had half a brain,he'd know they'd be scheming on him at their(the Clintons') behest from Day One?
Mind you,I don't like him one bit,but you should pick your own crew.Axelrod may be the only loyalist in that regard.
Gates and Jones are just professionals who have our country's back.

Posted by: joe bernstein at August 8, 2010 7:09 PM

Same mistake Bill Clinton made - the new blood was probably responsible for the winning campaign, but once in office, he felt obligated to the "grownups." That's why there's a big ehthusiasm gap right now.

Posted by: rhody at August 9, 2010 9:12 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.