Purcell: Criticism of Obama isn't too little, it's too late
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - 5:23pm
I’m starting to feel bad for President Obama, if you want to know the truth.
His poll numbers are so low — an IBD/TIPP poll indicates that 53 percent of adults in the United States now characterize Obama’s presidency as a “failure” — no Democrat candidates want to be seen with him.
Former CIA chief and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has been blasting Obama all week. Panetta, “long a trusted advisor to Democratic presidents, released a book about his years in the administration in which he criticizes President Obama as a vacillating leader who often ‘avoids the battle,’” reports the Los Angeles Times.
Just when you think things can’t get worse for Obama, Jimmy Carter criticizes him. Carter says his foreign policy is wishy-washy.
What will happen next? Obama’s dog Bo will leak unflattering stories to the National Inquirer?
So it is chic all of a sudden for erstwhile supporters to criticize the president for one failure after another.
Sure enough, Obama promised hope and change. He promised to cross the political aisle and work with the opposition party — but has been one of the most polarizing and divisive presidents in my lifetime.
Sure, Obama promised to be more transparent than any president in history — but has been one of the most secretive in history. Don’t ask me; ask the Society of Professional Journalists why it wrote a letter to the president, demanding the transparency he promised.
Sure, the Obama administration is bungling a number of things at home and abroad. ObamaCare has been messy and costly and continues to fall far short of its promises. And nobody is confident the president can correct huge foreign policy blunders when Obama tells Democrat supporters, “There’s a sense possibly that the world is spinning so fast and nobody is able to control it.”
My only question to the president’s growing number of critics is this: Where were you before Obama was elected — twice?
Prior to Obama’s first presidential election, I took the time to look into his record and accomplishments and was surprised to discover how paper-thin his resume was — for a presidential candidate, that is.
Sure, he attended fine schools. But we know very little about what he thought, wrote or accomplished while he was there.
He was a community organizer, lawyer, university lecturer and state senator, but there are no grand accomplishments that stand out in any of these roles — at least not the kind that cause people to think “that young man is going to be president one day!”
He began running for president one year into his term as junior senator of Illinois and rarely showed up to cast votes. That’s like being hired as a director of a company and immediately asking to become CEO.
He had no experience running a large organization — a modest record that showed he would cross the political aisle to get things done or effectively organize executive teams to roll out big, successful programs.
Nobody seemed to care, though. Because he was masterful at giving speeches. When people weren’t fainting at campaign rallies, they were praising him as a great savior who would solve America’s many challenges.
Unfortunately for everyone, however, Obama turned out to be a mere mortal.
And now his supporters complain that he doesn’t much like the political process — rolling up his sleeves and working behind the scenes to get things done. To the contrary, he’s aloof and a bit of a loner, they say.
So while it is suddenly chic to pile on and criticize the president’s shortcomings as a leader and commander in chief, I think the new critics should back off.
If you folks had examined what he promised to do before he was president — if you really examined his experience and skills — you would not be terribly surprised by the outcome. Your criticism is too late and you aren’t likely to change this president’s mind anyhow. So put a sock in it.
Tom Purcell is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist.
Posts
26 comments:
I agree with most of Purcell's column. All of the regulars here at MRWD have issues with many of Obama's policies. This isn't news.
But then Purcell writes this:
"My only question to the president’s growing number of critics is this: Where were you before Obama was elected — twice?"
Are you fucking kidding me? You seriously think that McCain or Romney wouldn't have fucked things up a hundred times worse?
Maybe you should examine the political process that places marginal candidates in position to receive the nomination in the first place. Hint: that's the part that's broken, not the crappy candidates themselves.
Sure enough, Obama promised hope and change. He promised to cross the political aisle and work with the opposition party — but has been one of the most polarizing and divisive presidents in my lifetime.
He's reached across the aisle plenty. In fact, Obama's opening position is usually to meet Republicans half way, much to the chagrin of Progressives everywhere. That's why we don't have a single payer healthcare system. Obama wanted a bill that would receive Republican votes. So we went with the plan the Republicans said they wanted, which they refused to support. No Republican is willing to work with him on ANY issue.
Obama might have been a great president if he'd received even half of the cooperation that his predecessors received from the opposing party in Congress. We'll never know.
I've got issues with the man, as do all of the regulars here. But he's been given a different playing field from every other president while being told he's playing the same game.
My issues with Obama stem from him being a moderate Republican. The individual mandate of the ACA was first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989, a lot of the other concepts of the ACA were ideas taken/plagiarized from various right-wing health care initiatives. Expansion of the Patriot Act, keeping Guantanamo open, suspending habeas corpus to anyone accused of being a “terrorist”, using drones to kill US citizens, continuing to appease the large corporation while ignoring the middle class, etc.
Why is it that any time I see a right winger cutting on the President they are always citing frivols imprecise charter flaws (he’s aloof and a bit of a loner, he golfs too much, he’s a socialist, he wants your guns) and not actual concreate issues like any of the ones I listed? I do know the answer to this, but I would like to see at least one self-proclaimed Obama-hater address a few things the President is doing wrong and how McCain, Romney or any other GOP dipshit would have handed it “better”.
At the moment I see our Government having a one party system while giving the illusion of a 2 party systems. Keeping the masses distracted with wedge issues like gay-marriage, abortion, religion in politics, etc. while the rich increase their profits and your salary/benefits stay stagnant or decrease.
Agree, Randall. And most of us have said it before: I am more than willing to have an adult, rational discussion with any conservative about what is "wrong" with Obama, but let's start on REAL issues.
I could give a stuff if Obama allegedly "plays too much golf," or "goes on too many vacations."
Let's talk real politics, real actions taken by the Pres and/or Congress.
The point of collecting these RWFs (thanks, Dave!) is that they highlight how b.s. most of the conservative "arguments" are, how these conservative forwards don't really address what's wrong - either with Obama or with the govt in general. MANY of them are incredibly racist, sexist, homophobic and so on. IOW, just red meat tossed at racist jerks who love to roll around in the muck and mire.
I have yet to see any RWF that actually factually addresses issues or problems with Obama's domestic or foreign policies. Note I said "factually." There are lengthy screeds sent out that appear to address ills & wrongs with Obama's domestic and foreign policies, yet these can ALL be torn apart instantly with all the lies and b.s. highlighted with simple google searches.
We have invited some of the conservatives who come here to have rational debates about the issues at hand, but in the several years that I've been coming here, there has NOT been even ONE conservative who engaged in anything that could be termed a "discussion" or "debate."
It's always just name-calling, racist/sexist/homophobic b.s., or junk like: all liberals just want a free ride and want the govt to wipe their asses. Yeah, real informative.
Don't hold your breath waiting for any real dialog.
Randall makes a good point; if I were a Republican, I'd be demanding his face on Mount Rushmore.
President has been really good to Republicans, and they attack him, anyway. You'd think they'd at least have the decency to be grateful, rather than lying 24/7 by calling him a Socialist or "the most liberal president ever".
Ok, "ferschitz": I'm going to give you a typical Liberal Weenie-like answer to this RWF (let's see if you agree with my redundant leftwing drivel about Obummer).
Hurling verbal lances at a straw man who dares to be a leader is easy and fun, but exercising leadership is difficult. What seems to be lacking in conservative commentary is reasonable alternative solutions to the complex problems confronting Obummer.
When President Obummer took office, the American economy was in a death spiral: the worst economic crisis in 60 years, ongoing wars in two foreign countries costing Americans trillions of dollars, the lives of 3,000 American soldiers, 10,000 disabled veterans and up to 100,000 non-combatant deaths; a huge budget deficit, and the colossal, self-induced crash of the financial services sector.
Today, Obummer is accused of a lack of focus in foreign policy. Yet his clear policy resulted in the ending of lengthy wars in two Muslim countries, in favor of opting to use our military resources to equip, train and provide support for indigenous military forces in the two countries to assume the responsibility for defense of their homelands. Obummer’s policy has been to eschew another commitment of U.S. troops to combat on the ground in the Middle East. This policy is consistent with the concerns of the majority of Americans to avoid another major foreign policy mistake by invading another country on shaky intelligence, without their consent and without the support of the United Nations or the majority of our allies. Obummer has opted instead to use U.S. airpower and unmanned drones to efficiently eliminate extremist jihadist and Taliban leaders, with much-reduced loss of lives of innocent civilians and, consequently, much less provocation of rage and demonizing of the United States by Muslim nations.
Are you still with me "ferschitz"????
Obummer's economic policy (as much as he could get the Congress to pass) has resulted in a revitalized, profitable U.S. automobile industry; revitalized, accelerating housing markets; millions of new jobs; the unemployment rate reduced to pre-2008 levels to a near-normal 5.9 percent, and a new record-high stock market, reflecting dramatic increases in profits by American businesses. How does this equate to the charge of allegedly failed economic policies?
Voila....Can I know be a "regular" Liberal-Weenie commentator/contributor to this Socialist MyRightWingDad blog? I think my above comments fit right in with the rest of your nitwit comments. Hallelujah. Amen my atheist brothers who don't want ANY prayer in schools whatsover! :-)
Now "ferschitz"....I'm gonna change thinking-caps and give you a Conservative rightwinger resonse to this RWF....Are you still with me?
What we're lacking at 1600, is a leader. Obummer has never led anything more than a pep rally, and at that, the cheers were scripted. And frankly, we need someone who cares about the American public and their needs. Yet we have someone who makes grand edicts about what's best for us, then fails to deliver on even that. No, we don't know how much better one of the other candidates would have done in the job. But we know for a fact this one is a dud.
Name ONE "real improvement in the economy" except the stock market bubble fed by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve? Have wages increased? Has real unemployment decreased...and I'm not talking about the doctored figures we get which leave out many who have just stopped looking for work. Have the number of food stamp recipients increased or decreased? Health insurance coverage? How many new signups didn't pay their premiums? How many people are faced with double-digit premium increases? How many people were kicked off their policies? My own premium went up 63%. When people DO buy coverage, even with the subsidies, they are faced with high co-pays and deductibles, so they're still virtually uninsured, except in the face of a catastrophic illness. Wait until the premium rates increase in 2015, based on the prior claims experience of having to insure so many people with pre-existing conditions. That doesn't even count the number of jobs eliminated or downgraded to part-time positions due to the overbearing requirements of the ACA. The last figure I remember reading about unpaid premiums was around 30%. I guess if 70% pay, that makes it acceptable? I didn't even bring up the 2 to 3 million people who either lied about their citizenship or income to get subsidies. Honor system.....riiiight. The ACA has resulted in massive premium increases. The young people that the model depended on haven't signed up in enough numbers to offset those with pre-existing conditions and those who are older, whose costs are higher. I haven't talked to many people whose premiums have actually gone down. We can wait until the headlines break after January, 2015, to debate how high premiums will go.
I think you need to read something more than a hippie magazine, hoss.
No experience, no ability, no background, and handed every position they ever received. Yes, I'm talking about Obama, but that same description fits Hillary Clinton to a "T".
Mike Hawk
P.S. - P.S. - The Federal Reserve policy under Obummer was SUPPOSED to make money available to businesses for loans and expansion, but the banks haven't been lending it out. I've never said that Republicans didn't favor Wall Street, but the fact of the matter is that the Democrats have been the recipients of just as much of Wall St/Big Business/Big Bank largess as have the Republicans. Campaign finance reform won't change the practice of pay-to-play. My point here is that the Democrats had a chance to change this, and did not.
The lower rates from the Fed have spurred an increase in home buying, but new construction is still struggling. Our mortgage lenders are also starting to make those tricky loans again, and most of the growth in auto sales for GM and Chrysler have been due to sub-prime lending. Someone didn't learn their lesson the last time.
Business start ups and expansions are still weak, despite the lower rates. As for the stock market, if you don't think the artificially-high Dow figures are a bubble, I'd like to know what you think a bubble is.
Unemployment numbers went down because we quit counting those who just quit looking for work, and because the labor pool is shrinking. I find it highly suspect that the same people who were shrieking their heads off about the "unacceptably high" unemployment numbers during the Bush term of 5.5% and 6% are now telling us that 7% is the new wonderful.
"Middle class income hasn't increased, but the income of the wealthy is going up." Think that has anything to do with the favorable Fed policies and the big donors in the banks and brokerage houses? Oh, yeah...I forgot...they only help those evil Republicans.
I'm tired of hearing people try to justify the actions of this administration. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, no matter how hard you try.
Well, well. Look who put on his bigboy pants. ( =
You realize that you are making a lot of points championed by the New Deal Roosevelt Democrats, right?
I am one of the last of that breed. Are you sure you're not a little confused? You might be more lefty than you know. You have more in common with us liberal-weenies than you may realize. The 1% is your enemy, not us.
At any rate. Ferschitz, you get first crack.
I'll chime in after.
Oh Lord, I'm "fixin'" to get tag-teamed by the WCW duo of "gruaud' and 'ferschitz"? Shall I lube up with KY or just plain ol' Vaseline?
Mike Hawk
Haha, I wonder who actually thinks criticism of Obama is "too little." Surely nobody who's been awake the past six years.
Mike:
Has real unemployment decreased...and I'm not talking about the doctored figures we get which leave out many who have just stopped looking for work.
This is also part of the official reports. Check out U-4, U-5, and U-6. Here's another site tracking U-6 by year. It is definitely trending downward.
Now, it's still not a great level of employment for us, five years after the peak of the crisis. I think most people here will agree that the wishy-washy stimulus program, which couldn't decide whether to directly funnel money into useful programs or cut taxes, didn't do enough quickly enough. Letting the banks and markets run wild with speculation for so long was a horrible move as well. But strictly speaking, employment has improved, whether or not Obama or Congress deserve any credit.
I didn't even bring up the 2 to 3 million people who either lied about their citizenship or income to get subsidies.
I'd like to see some source for this, as I don't even see any conspiracy theories in a quick search. Obamacare has big problems, but calling a third of the enrollment bogus is a pretty huge claim.
Aside from that, I agree with gruad. You raise excellent points, and you'd make a pretty good liberal ;)
I can't take anyone seriously who attempts to engage in political discourse while repeatedly referring to the president as "Obummer."
No, Mike Hawk, you haven't put on your big boy pants yet; you're still acting like a child.
Gee whiz, "Mike Hawk," please go through this site and grab some links where I have defended Obama in the manner in which you accuse me. Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Buehler? Buehler???
"Shall I lube up with KY or just plain ol' Vaseline?"
You're saying a lot more about yourself than about me, sport. Think about it.
I don't mind "Mike Hawk" referring to Obama as Obummer. Why? Because I use that terminology (as juvenile as it is) MYSELF.
It's so laughable that this rightwing troll would come here and accuse ME, of all people, of fawning over and defending Obama in the manner that "Mike Hawk" does.
This just goes back to my redundant position that we never EVER see conservatives who come here be ready to really *discuss* the issues logically and factually.
"Mike Hawk," in his initial response, engaged in the typically tedious rightwing maneuver of LYING about how *I* would respond. LIE. Teh stoopit, it burnz, "Mike Hawk."
Grow a pair and come back and discuss this with me sensibly and factually, and then I'll be happy to engage in an reality-based, factual adult conversation with you.
As of yet, all I see is a rightwing troll engaging in the usual boring tedious LIES about how "liberals" allegedly "respond."
Turn off El-Lushbo for once.
In actuality, "Mike Hawk," you and I probably have much more in common than you think you do with your 1% pals at Fox, etc. The common issue here is YOU are falling into the trap of allowing yourself to be pit against those who you see as "horrid liberals" in the 99%.
United we stand, divided we fall. Due to tools like you, "Mike Hawk," all of us in the 99s will continue to be robbed & ripped off by the 1%.
And here's a free tip for you: it really doesn't matter one friggin iota who is sitting in the Oval Office on PA Ave, nor does it matter who is in Congress or the Supreme Court.
In case you failed to notice it (which it appears you have), NONE of these politicians represent either YOU or ME, no matter how we choose to label our political beings. All of those whores you see inside the Beltway in the District of Criminals are working ONLY and SOLEY for the 1%.
And every single one of them is laughing their asses off at tools like you, "Mike Hawk," who fall for their Divide & Conquer b.s. games.
Keep on listening to Rush. I'm sure he'll tell you a lot of truthy crap that makes you feel ever so superior to stupid liberals.
I call that: weak sauce.
It's also interesting that quite a few rightwingers - trolls or otherwise - who come here to comment often indulge themselves in saying that regulars here are gay... as IF that's this really terrible horrid shaming thing, and we should all get freaked out or horrified or something to be called gay... as if it's the WORST thing in the world.
Another tedious indulgence by conservatives. I happen not to be gay, but I really don't care if someone wants to "accuse" me of it in very homophobic and low-life language.
It's speaks volumes about the accuser, and I really don't give a stuff being viewed as gay.... because there's nothing wrong with it. But there is something very wrong with homophobic assholes.
Staying "on topic" - Additionally for ferschitz and gruaud:
We should know by now that Obama is above all criticism...if you do criticize him, you are either dumb or a racist...or both. We have been taught this for the past seven years.
The fact that Democrats running for re-election are staying as far away from the President and his policies as possible, also diminishes this rosy picture.
In a recent Gallup poll, the president's overall job approval was 44%, his handling of the economy was only at 36% approval and his handling of foreign affairs was at 35%. These numbers have been consistently falling. What's that saying about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...?
Those who disapprove of Obama are not all conservatives. Many democrats have removed their head out of the sand to see what a "lightweight" Obama truly is.
In the area of foreign policy, we are now facing a major problem with these extreme Muslims. Because Obama failed to leave a residual force in Iraq when we pulled out through is inability to negotiate with the Iraqi President, a vacuum was created to allow ISIS to step in and grow. We left residual forces in Europe, Japan and Korea after we won those conflicts. We left no forces in Vietnam because we didn't win that war. (I might add that war was fought under a Democrat President). We have managed to alienate our strongest ally in the middle east Israel. Around the world, and even some of his former cabinet members, folks state Obama is way over his head in regards to military tactics and foreign policy.
Maybe some of this information will help gruaud and ferschitz pull there heads out of the sand in regards to Obama. But, since you guys seem to be far left loons, your heads are encased in concrete and not in sand so they are planted forever in the failed ideas of liberalism.
P.S. - Conclusion: Obama has made some big mistakes.
However, even I will be "man enough" to admit that general conservative thinking is like believing its just as easy to clean up a spilled jar on the floor as it is to drop it and break it in the first place.
I'm not satisfied with Obama, neither are many Democrats, but its not because he's not cleaned up the spilled jar on the floor created by GWB.
Conservatives live in denial about that.
Don't want to talk about it.
Can't name it.
Won't name it.
But then, when all they do is read or listen to is conservative media what else is to be expected?
Good day!
Mike Hawk (News and Commentary):-)
"Maybe some of this information will help gruaud and ferschitz pull there heads out of the sand in regards to Obama. But, since you guys seem to be far left loons, your heads are encased in concrete and not in sand so they are planted forever in the failed ideas of liberalism."
Ferschitz is probably Obama's biggest critic among the regulars here.
And it's no secret that I have serious issues with the man.
Yet you persist in painting us as Pavlovian Obama dogs. That is incredibly obtuse. You need to read more closely.
As for the failed ideas of Liberalism, they actually succeeded in spectacular fashion, benefiting all but the most avaricious.
"Mike Hawk" makes some sense with some of his commentary, but it's clear that he's on a mission to undermine gruaud and me by pretending/lying that we have beliefs or opinions that we don't have. It is typical rightwing smear tactics, as we've all seen over & over in RWFs - lies upon lies upon lies, which can be easily debunked by doing very cursory research (this time by reading through commentary here).
One has to wonder who's paying "Mike Hawk" (it happens) and WHY are "Mike Hawk's" handlers so *fearful* of what guraud and I are saying?
Gives one pause.
Keep digging deeper "Mike Hawk," bc per the usual rightwing sock pupper, you're doing a lousy job.
gruaud writes: "As for the failed ideas of Liberalism, they actually succeeded in spectacular fashion, benefiting all but the most avaricious."
Like in Europe? Venezuela? Cuba?
Where, my friend?
To "Mike Hawk" - all of the above, plus Chile, for example, until the CIA effected a coup on that other Sept 11, 1973, and killed/disappeared many citizens and assassinated lawfully elected Pres Salvador Allende. But hey: PepsiCo and Anaconda Copper didn't want to be nationalized because less money for the greedy 1%.
BTW, both of the Castro brothers have stated numerous times that the main reason why they had a dictatorship in Cuba is bc the USA has overthrown most non-dictatorial socialist govts in the Americas.
Also btw, the main country supplying MEDICAL personnel - as opposed to military types (think: AFRICOM) - to, you know, actually DO SOMETHING FOR the West African citizens affected by Ebola is Cuba. Yeah, Cuba is just so horrid... because of the USA blockade and various other draconian measures taken against it. I know that the 1%er Cubans in America, esp southern FL, hate hate hate Castro, but what would you expect?
But thanks for engaging on a more realistic basis. Nice that Cass Sunstein provided us with a more intelligent sock puppet, albeit took you long enough to stop spouting bogus nonsense.
Right here, Mike. Right here.
Liberalism? Let's look at the horrors liberalism has wrought.
The United States won a world war, ended a depression, built a middle class, created social security and unemployement insurance, enacted Medicare/Medicaid, passed the GI bill, established the SEC and FDIC, enacted child labor laws, minimum wage, time and a half, respect and elevation of minorities, et cetera and et fucking cetera.
I can go on endlessly.
And the pig people have been working tirelessly since the 1930's to tear it all down.
Name one bill the GOP ever enacted that helped the working man. You can't, because Republicans are for the rich and powerful - and FUCK the little guy. That's why they spend literally billions of dollars trying to change 'liberalism' into a dirty word. The return on investment is worth trillions.
You think that conservatism is the winning side, and you may be right. All my life I've been on the losing side, but that doesn't make it the wrong side.
Not now, not ever.
That's right, gruaud...you ARE on the "losing side".
Today, in America, we have many solid Democrats running away from this Obummer guy as if he is toxic. Very few Dems up for reelection want the President to campaign for them. He did hold a rare campaign event in Maryland and people walked out on his speech. His fund raisers are successful, but he is speaking to wealthy supporters and the events are closed to average Americans.
Swing and a miss, "Mike Hawk," but you knew that. Your 1% handler just paid you to come pitch a fit about Obama. Whatever.
This after a number of commenters here, including gruaud, have said they're not wholly enthused about Obama and have some issues with him.
And AS IF the "Republicans" have anything better to offer.
Mike Hawk "ain't" hawking anything.
Sincerely,
Mike Hawk
Post a Comment