The paragraph that really jumped out at me was the one that dealt with this question: can a modern day president succeed and if not, what are the obstacles? Baker thinks that a modern day president really can't succeed and here's why.
An implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration.
Mos def. It's their way or the highway. They want him to fail (for a number of reasons) and will do everything in their power to make certain this happens regardless of the public well being.
A news media saturated with triviality and conflict.
The story of the 2010 elections was written last August. The Democrats are going to lose big time on November 2nd and it will be because voters have rejected Obama due to his "failed" policies. Quite typical of the "liberal" media. But the triviality is the key here. We saw stories about education for about a week and then it was back to stories of trailer trash and ghetto crime.
A culture that demands solutions yesterday.
Ah, yes. Our hyper instant gratification society exemplified perfectly by Thelma Frank who told President Obama last month that she wasn't "feeling" the recovery yet. What does that even mean? And does she expect me to feel pity for her that she has to buy hot dogs and beans while still shelling out 50K a year for private school for her children?
This impatience has been pounced on by the Koch Brothers through their Tea Party network and exploited beyond all rationality. It's absolutely stunning to me that people who make less than 100K a year are listening to a word the Kochs and their cronies are saying. If we get the type of government that the current form of the GOP is striving for, the little that remains of the middle class are clearly going to be hurt the most.
A societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard.
This one is probably the worst. We have a knee jerk reaction to hating leaders now. This used to not be the case. I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP in their insanity over President Clinton....an insanity which has now been conveniently forgotten (more on that giant pile of bullshit later).
A common mistake made by the Right is that people like me just hated Bush for no reason. This is an excellent example of hating in others what we fear in ourselves. I never hated Bush and simply thought he was incompetent. I think the results that came from his actions speak volumes. But they do hate Obama, though, and for no reason other than to be deliberately contrary. This would be why millions of people believe a shouting, mouth foamer when they say "Obamacare is threatening our freedom" without a shred of evidence to back it up. Or an alternate and detailed plan to replace it.
Since many Americans have this natural cynicism, they're going to distrust or even hate President Obama no matter what he does. As Baker concludes, a president in modern day America can, at best, hope for being average. Given our country's recent history that is filled with leaders that deserved accolades and respect, I find this entire, collective attitude to be completely nauseating.
26 comments:
Before you read it, check out the gallery of photos by Ashley Gilbertson that accompany the article. Amazing, right?
Uh, pics of the president are amazing? Nice man-crush you're sportin'.
from the article:
Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.
This explains everything you need to about Obama - He isn't interested in actual answers to problems, just getting points politically. What a JOKE!
This article and your response are laughable. Let's start with the first one:
An implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration.
Why would you EVER collaborate with proposals that historically have proven as failures? WHY? Regardless of what you want to happen as a result, the methods are wrong and most people know this. Unfortunately, you and Obama acolytes don't. We both want the same result, our disagreement is how you get there.
A societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard.
This isn't a "knee jerk reaction" by any means. People are fed up with bullshit. Clinton started down that road and turned in time to save some of his term. Bush was Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Obama is by most people's accounts a complete fraud. Lots of great fluff and no substance behind it. People gave him the benefit of the doubt and voted him in office in spite of NO experience, NO leadership, and no accomplishments other than getting elected. Even with his abomination of an administration, people still gave him a pass saying he just needed more time. But, as always, incompetence is eventually discovered and he has been given more than his share of chances. He just doesn't have the skill.
I don't think you know what leadership even looks like since you are constantly fawning over this complete failure. What would happen if you actually saw someone say in the mold of Patton appear on the national stage... wet your pants? Your continued support for Obama looks exactly like what you decry coming from the right - Ideology above all else. Project much?!
You (and other lefties) continue to push reasons for his failures off on the opposition but it isn't so. You can wish he was better, you can wish for the end result you want, but he is not the person that can do that. If you want real answers instead of the feel-good band-aids and slogans, there needs to be a real leader emerging out of one of the parties. Unfortunately, I have only seen one that has the moxy to shake things up and I don't think he will ever get to the big stage.
The first step is to admit you have a problem.
Agreed, DT. Will you?
It's their way or the highway.
As in, "I won"?
As in, cutting the opposition party entirely out of the legislative process, and then whining about how partisan they are because they didn't vote for the result?
As in refusing to let anything authored by the opposition come to the floor at all, and then claiming they had no ideas?
If we get the type of government that the current form of the GOP is striving for, the little that remains of the middle class are clearly going to be hurt the most.
Why is it that if someone who disagrees with you says something like this, you give them grief about claiming to be able to predict the future? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP in their insanity over President Clinton...
...who was a white trash sexual predator who couldn't keep his pecker in his pants and didn't think sexual harassment laws should apply to him. True, it turned out he was one of the more able chief administrators we've had, and the only Democrat with any real cred as an executive since JFK. Nonetheless, the Democrats' choice of Clinton loudly proclaimed all the principles liberals said they supported to be so much bullshit, to be tossed under the bus when inconvenient. Women's rights? Fuck em. It showed NOW to be nothing more or less than a propaganda organization, with no interest in "women's rights" or "women's issues" whatsoever.
Maybe that's why people are angry with the Democrats. They're tired of having their intelligence insulted by people who insist that their obvious con game be accepted as solid coin. I won't claim to know, you understand, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising, would it?
A common mistake made by the Right is that people like me just hated Bush for no reason. This is an excellent example of hating in others what we fear in ourselves. I never hated Bush and simply thought he was incompetent.
Ah... so it wasn't a reaction to the bloody effigies and the pictures of Bush with a gun to his head... it was all a mistaken reaction to people like you.
*Whew*. Good thing we cleared that up.
But they do hate Obama, though, and for no reason other than to be deliberately contrary.
That thing I said above about predicting the future? Add reading minds. You not only know beyond doubt what total strangers feel, you know why they feel it too. Amazing.
...they do hate Obama...
"They"... "they" who? "They" as in "the Other"?
This would be why millions of people believe a shouting, mouth foamer...
Like Alan Grayson? Or David Axelrod? Or James Carville? Or Jeremiah Wright? Or Maxine Waters?
Or an alternate and detailed plan...
...like "Hope and Change".
When you are compelled by government to purchase a product, your freedom is in fact infringed upon.
It's their way or the highway.
You mean like, "I won"?
You mean like cutting the opposition party out of the legislative process entirely, and then complaining about them being partisan when they fail to support the process you cut them out of?
You mean like refusing to allow anything authored by an opposition member to even come to the floor for debate, and then claiming that they "don't have any ideas"?
A culture that demands solutions yesterday.
Instead, they should believe you when you say unemployment will be 8% unless we do what you want done, and then after that prediction proves wrong, believe that it would have been 15% had we not done what you wanted? All with no real evidence to back either prediciton?
...the type of government that the current form of the GOP is striving for...
If someone who disagrees with you says something like this, they're given grief for "claiming to predict the future", aren't they? I wonder why. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?
Is Obamacare "a Trojan Horse for Single-Payer"?
I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP in their insanity over President Clinton...
Of course you do. To be fair, Clinton did turn out to be one of the more able administrators we've had, and the best of the Dem field since JFK (Obama included). Nonetheless, he was a classless white trash sexual predator who couldn't keep his pecker in his pants and didn't think the law should apply to him. You know, like sexual harassment laws?
Perhaps when the Dems chose Clinton, people saw their "principles" for what they were: So much bullshit to entice voters with, and that's all. NOW blatantly announced itself as a propaganda arm of the Dem Party, and that's all. Women's rights? Fuck 'em. "Iron my shirt."
Maybe, just maybe, people are tired of con artists feeding them an obvious line of bullshit and expecting those transparent lies to be taken as solid coin. It's insulting to people's intelligence.
A common mistake made by the Right is that people like me just hated Bush for no reason. This is an excellent example of hating in others what we fear in ourselves. I never hated Bush and simply thought he was incompetent.
Ah... so there's no chance that it's a reaction to the bloody effigies, the signs with him getting his head blown off or stabbed, the open declaration of the desire for violence. Couldn't be, right? It had to have all been a mistaken reaction to people like you.
*Whew!* Good thing we cleared that up, huh?
But they do hate Obama, though, and for no reason other than to be deliberately contrary.
What I said about predicting the future? Add reading minds. You can not only tell what complete strangers feel without ever knowing anything else about them, you can tell why they feel it. Amazing.
...they do hate Obama...
"They"? "They" who? "They" as in "the Other"?
This would be why millions of people believe a shouting, mouth foamer...
Like Alan Grayson? Or Barbara Boxer? Or David Axelrod? Or Maxine Waters?
...without a shred of evidence to back it up.
See unemployment above.
Or an alternate and detailed plan to replace it.
Ah, like "Hope and Change"?
(1 of 2)
It's their way or the highway.
You mean like, "I won"?
You mean like cutting the opposition party out of the legislative process entirely, and then complaining about them being partisan when they fail to support the process you cut them out of?
You mean like refusing to allow anything authored by an opposition member to even come to the floor for debate, and then claiming that they "don't have any ideas"?
A culture that demands solutions yesterday.
Instead, they should believe you when you say unemployment will be 8% unless we do what you want done, and then after that prediction proves wrong, believe that it would have been 15% had we not done what you wanted? All with no real evidence to back either prediction?
...the type of government that the current form of the GOP is striving for...
If someone who disagrees with you says something like this, they're given grief for "claiming to predict the future", aren't they? I wonder why. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?
Is Obamacare "a Trojan Horse for Single-Payer"?
I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP in their insanity over President Clinton...
Of course you do. To be fair, Clinton did turn out to be one of the more able administrators we've had, and the best of the Dem field since JFK (Obama included). Nevertheless, he was a classless white trash sexual predator who couldn't keep his pecker in his pants and didn't think the law should apply to him. You know, like sexual harassment laws?
Perhaps when the Dems chose Clinton, people saw their "principles" for what they were: So much bullshit to entice voters with, and that's all. NOW blatantly announced itself as a propaganda arm of the Dem Party, and that's all. Women's rights? Fuck em. "Iron my shirt."
Maybe, just maybe, people are tired of con artists feeding them an obvious line of bullshit and expecting those transparent lies to be taken as solid coin. It's insulting to people's intelligence.
Maybe, just maybe, that's why TP candidates are taking on Republican bullshit artists as well.
(1 of 3)
It's their way or the highway.
You mean like, "I won"?
You mean like cutting the opposition party out of the legislative process entirely, and then complaining about them being partisan when they fail to support the process you cut them out of?
You mean like refusing to allow anything authored by an opposition member to even come to the floor for debate, and then claiming that they "don't have any ideas"?
A culture that demands solutions yesterday.
Instead, they should believe you when you say unemployment will be 8% unless we do what you want done, and then after that prediction proves wrong, believe that it would have been 15% had we not done what you wanted? All with no real evidence to back either prediction?
...the type of government that the current form of the GOP is striving for...
If someone who disagrees with you says something like this, they're given grief for "claiming to predict the future", aren't they? I wonder why. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?
Is Obamacare "a Trojan Horse for Single-Payer"?
(2 of 3)
I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP in their insanity over President Clinton...
Of course you do. To be fair, Clinton did turn out to be one of the more able administrators we've had, and the best of the Dem field since JFK (Obama included). Nevertheless, he was a classless white trash sexual predator who couldn't keep his pecker in his pants and didn't think the law should apply to him. You know, like sexual harassment laws?
Perhaps when the Dems chose Clinton, people saw their "principles" for what they were: So much bullshit to entice voters with, and that's all. NOW blatantly announced itself as a propaganda arm of the Dem Party, and that's all. Women's rights? Fuck em. "Iron my shirt."
Maybe, just maybe, people are tired of con artists feeding them an obvious line of bullshit and expecting those transparent lies to be taken as solid coin. It's insulting to people's intelligence.
Maybe, just maybe, that's why TP candidates are taking on bullshit artists in the GOP as well.
A common mistake made by the Right is that people like me just hated Bush for no reason. This is an excellent example of hating in others what we fear in ourselves. I never hated Bush and simply thought he was incompetent.
Ah... so there's no chance that it's a reaction to the bloody effigies, the signs with him getting his head blown off or stabbed, the open declaration of the desire for violence. Couldn't be, right? It had to have all been a mistaken reaction to people like you.
*Whew!* Good thing we cleared that up, huh?
(3 of 3)
But they do hate Obama, though, and for no reason other than to be deliberately contrary.
What I said about predicting the future? Add reading minds. You can not only tell what a complete stranger feels without ever knowing anything else about them, you can tell why they feel it. Amazing.
...they do hate Obama...
"They"? "They" who? "They" as in "the Other"?
This would be why millions of people believe a shouting, mouth foamer...
Like Alan Grayson? Or Barbara Boxer? Or David Axelrod? Or Maxine Waters?
...without a shred of evidence to back it up.
See unemployment above.
Or an alternate and detailed plan to replace it.
Ah, like "Hope and Change"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54FRMedT_s
I see a common theme on here these last few days...
"Because the American people are basically Sally Field in the film Sybil."
"There might be a lot of anger out there..."
"the American people want to have their cake and eat it too:)"
"They want him to fail"
"Our hyper instant gratification society"
"This impatience has been pounced on by the Koch Brothers"
"We have a knee jerk reaction to hating leaders now."
"I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP"
"millions of people believe a shouting, mouth foamer"
"Since many Americans have this natural cynicism"
"I find this entire, collective attitude to be completely nauseating."
-----------------------------------
The problem isn't the democrat policies, it's with those enraged, fearful, confused voters as well as the party who is out of power and doesn't have the votes to pass anything it wants in the house. Is insulting the electorate part of the hope or the change?
How can you judge the policies when they haven't been implemented yet? Saying that health care reform "restricts freedom" means nothing. How? Why?
How can you judge the policies when they haven't been implemented yet?
Speaking of perfect summations...
Daniel, let me try again. When govt compels you to buy a product you have lost the freedom to choose not to buy said product - unless fines and/ or jail are reasonable choices to you.
When govt dictates your behavior, down to what products you MUST buy, that is a loss of freedom. Why can't you understand that?
And when a company raises my insurance rates where is my freedom to dispute them? I can't go anywhere else because that's the insurance my employer offers. If I go out on my own, my payments double or triple. As Mark has said several times on here, I have no freedom with corporations unless I have a lot of money to buy stock. I have freedom to vote someone in office who will regulate health care and represent my interests. Or to run myself. So do you.
I can't go anywhere else
If I go out on my own, my payments double
So it's not that you don't have a choice, it's rather that you just don't like the choice.
There's no freedom in being forced to pay more money by an insurance cabal who isn't interested in anything but profit. If you think we should go back to paying doctor's directly and have them compete with one another, you would have me on board. But that's not the system we have right now.
Forced daniel? Really? Did they intimate a threat of violence or did they literally put the gun to your head?
This is like Marxy's gas company thing.
And when a company raises my insurance rates where is my freedom to dispute them? I can't go anywhere else because that's the insurance my employer offers. If I go out on my own, my payments double or triple.
And who is it that flatly refused to even consider allowing insurance companies to compete with one another, thus lowering prices?
Hint: It wasn't the Republicans.
I can't go anywhere else because that's the insurance my employer offers.
And the Democrats grand health care [insurance?] reform did NOT change that. blk has raised this same point and I fully agree - tying health insurance to employment is absurd. You don't buy auto insurance that way. You don't by home or life insurance that way.
Perhaps, if health insurance was like auto insurance, we'd have Geico or Progressive bringing the cost down. Might not be perfect, but it probably would be better than the way it is now.
Juris--I'd agree with that. The question becomes how affordable the rates would be given the insane levels of pricing for health care.
GuardDuck-They may as well have put a gun to my head because it is my physical health we are talking about here.
DT-The exchange that is being set up is meant to foster more competition not less which is what we have now. I also think you are wordsmithing here when it comes to competition. Regulating is not forcing. Regulating an out of control industry what continues to raise costs year after year if not forcing.
I've never seen regulation that lowers costs.
If your prime reason for reform is to lower costs to you, regulation will not accomplish that.
They may as well have put a gun to my head because it is my physical health we are talking about here.
Nope, not going to accept that. You need food and water to live. Even more important than medical care. But it would be just as ridiculous to state that McDonald's is evilly forcing you to spend too much money on a burger that you need to survive.
DT-The exchange that is being set up is meant to foster more competition not less which is what we have now.
"Meant to"... how's that working out so far? Even if it works as advertised, do you think it would generate more competition (and thus more downward pressure on prices) than making any health insurer in any state able to sell insurance in all the other states? In other words, all health insurers in the US compete against each other? That was the Republican solution that Pelosi et al refused to allow to even be debated.
So who's doing the wordsmithing here?
given the insane levels of pricing for health care
There are many reasons for soaring health costs, including innovation (new drugs/procedures/tools cost money to develop), misallocation/waste (people using ER for what should be routine doctor visits), fraud, greed and the simple fact that when something doesn't cost YOU anything (or only a small fraction of the actual cost) - you will probably consume more of it. The key point is not to obsess on a single facet, as many people are inclined to do.
The big change will be when people don't expect health insurance to pay for routine health care. I don't have auto insurance to get gas or do maintenance - it is for the big hit like a collision or other total loss of the car. I've paid auto insurance for YEARS without "needing" it (in the sense of actually having it bail me out of a bad situation). We need that same approach to health care and insurance.
Health care exchanges... they accomplish exactly what, that merely opening competition between all health insurance providers would not? So far as I can tell, 3 things:
1. They set a minimum standard. This means any companies too small to bear the expenses of that minimum cannot stay in business, and any customers who cannot afford the minimum cannot buy. Much the same effect on small business as minimum wage laws, really. This is supposed to increase choice and lower costs. Shyeah okay.
2. It gives favored groups a means by which to bypass the regulations (eg waivers). Thus it gives the government the tools to reward allies and punish enemies. This is what the Obama Administration calls "fairness".
3. It gives everyone (corporations, unions, political groups, individuals, EVERYONE) a deep interest in gaming the system to their advantage.
Any inaccuracies in that? Anything I've missed?
Post a Comment