Well ladies and dudes.... as we come to the close of 2009, with our current POTUS, BO, has he risen to the challenges that faced the country a year ago? has he done things that set our country upon the path of righteousness, or an alternative path.
Overall, what say you to his performance in 2009? did he lead. and if so, where has he led us to? Did he solve problems, and if so, what problems did he solve? Did he enable justice, and if so, what unjust acts have been set right?
While I have no particular complaints, I do think that on the whole, he is not a leader. While I do not perceive him as doing great harm (much of what has happened was put in play by GW, and he only carried on) this is due mostly to his inability to work with Congress to enact his agenda on a grand scale.
Sadly, I think he will finish his 1st term in office, much as Carter did. Misunderstood, and wondering why America does not accept his wisdom and guidance.... and wondering why things did not turn out the way he thought that they would...
At least we do in athletics, business and education (students). You perform, you are rewarded. You fail, you are fired or expelled, and rightfully so. The SNL skit last month was spot on about Obama's accomplishments, so based on that his current grade is F. One could argue that politics is a different game, and it's near impossible to get anything done. That's bullshit. Obama needs to take a page from Clinton's playbook and move to the center. He may piss off the extreme left and their agenda, but if he is smart he will realize the majority of Americans are moderate, hence helping his chances of getting reelected. Obama needs to learn how to manage and play the game, or else he will realize how Charlie Weis feels about being fired from Notre Dame today.
1. He did not invade any countries. Although he is about to send more troops to Afghanistan, he really has no choice since this is necessary to protect the troops already there, the only rationale I’m willing to buy.
2. He won the Nobel Peace Prize. His predecesor was branded a war criminal.
3. He stopped the Bush policies of torture and indefinite detention, although he seems to have underestimated how difficult it would be to close Gitmo.
4. He laid the groundwork for better relationships with Arab countries by saying “we’re here to listen.” When have you ever heard an American president say anything like that? Is it any wonder we are perceived internationally as being arrogant?
5. He taken national health care insurance to the brink of enactment. Presidents have been trying to accomplish this for 60 years and only Obama had gotten this far.
6. Some say the stimulus package he signed in February prevented a depression.
Certainly more than I got done this year.
Perhaps the most impressive first year of any president since Roosevelt.
1. He did not invade any countries. He also didn't have two planes fly into our buildings.
2. His name was proposed only a few weeks into his presidency. He didn't even know how to find the bathroom in the residence yet. Even the idiots in Stockholm couldn't give a half assed explanation for what Obama had done to justify the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama himself couldn't even figure out what he'd done to deserve it.
3. He stopped the Bush policies for interrogation and intelligence gathering. In doing so he has made us vulnerable to attack by shutting down the carefully constructed and highly effective intelligence network constructed on Bush's watch.
4. He laid the groundwork for people who only understand the principle of who has the biggest stick to view us as weak. Witness the fact that only days after Hillary reached out the Arab community, she had to turn right around and placate them some more because she didn't villify Israel enough. Maybe, just MAYBE, by the end of his term, Obama will come to understand what others among us have already learned: that there is absolutely NOTHING......NOTHING....we can ever say or do that will make muslim extremists like us, respect us, or stop trying to kill us. The ONLY thing that will EVER make them happy is to see the Koran supplant the Constitution, and our women hidden under veils. That's it, and that ain't EVER gonna happen.
PS. How's all that love working on Iran? They aren't planning any crazy expansions of their enrichment plan are they? Surely they wouldn't do that since we are kissing up to them, right?
5. Oh yes, he's almost managed to accomplish a goal that he said was going to be a top priority. I am just waiting with baited breath for women all across the land to be told they can't have a mammogram until they are 50 years old. Every year, over TEN PERCENT of all diagnoses of breast cancer are women under the age of 40. TEN PERCENT of all women who develop breast cancer will not KNOW they have breast cancer until they are YEARS beyond hope of treatment. In 2005, 186,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Of those, 1,800 were under age 50. Now, those 1,800 women will not learn they have breast cancer until it is too late. Oh yeah, I just can't wait for national health care.
6. Uh, no it didn't. Not even close.
Let's examine your objections.
1. So your solution to terrorism is to invade the country where they trained or are located? Let’s see, there were 2,973 killed on 9/11. As of November 23, 2009, there have been 1,464 coalition deaths in Afghanistan and 4,528 American soldiers have been wounded in action. And we’ve got years to go. And we still have not got the really top guys.
You really believe invasion is the proper response to terrorism? The dead and wounded may disagree with you.
2. The professionals tasked with making the award disagree with you. And the question was, what has he accomplished, not what does he deserve.
3. Perhaps. We can always make things a bit safer by adopting illegal police state tactics. Or we can accept some degree of vulnerability as the price for living in a free society governed by laws and ethics. Which would be your choice? East Germany or the United States under President Obama?
4. He was not trying to make “muslim extremists like us, respect us, or stop trying to kill us.” This was addressed to the Arab and other nations on his trip abroad, not to the bad guys.
5. Not enough close. None of the bills prohibits women from getting mamograms till they are 50. You are thinking
about the new guidelines by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies. Most experts say insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines.
6. There are economic experts who say otherwise.
I'll give you Iran - he has not figured out what to do there at all. But that's the only one.
This recent interview makes the strong case that the bill does indeed adopt the recommendations of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on the date of the bill's effectivity. Furthermore the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force seems to get absorbed or changed into the new Clinical Preventive Services Task Force. Of course all this probably only applies to the public option. That is up until the public option is the only option.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/transcript-health-care-debate/story?id=9147946&page=3
detected breast cancer by doing self-exams... and guess what, it was not a false positive... and they were BOTH UNDER the freakin age of 40 .... AND IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING at all you would know that these "guidelines" rapidly become the norm for payment.
Methinks they released the study.... prior to the new bill NOT being passed... opps.
you like those guidelines... here are some which are sure to come...
dialysis for kidney patients over the age of 45 - denied.
Treatment of a Brain recurrent tumor for a 79-yr old senile patient (Gamma knife surgery) would be denied as too expensive... after all he would have little productive years left.... Right Senator Arlen Specter???
no prosthetics for anyone over the age of 50. Just too expensive.
These Dastards don't have to live by the laws they enact...
With the present shortage of H1N1 vaccine, what age group is at the bottom of the list? Over 64 of course, regardless of the condition of their health. Now granted, there is rational evidence that old people actually have a stronger immunity to this particular strain than other age groups (presumably due to previous H1N1 flu outbreaks), but still, the look and feel of this prohibition isn’t going to go over well.
Okay next time I'll consult you instead of the spokesperson for the insurance industry who was the source for my post:
"The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies. But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines."
except when it supports your argument of course.
they are most likely correct (or correct for the most part.)
But as applied to government run healthcare be it Medicare, Medicaid or the newly proposed "government option", they will almost certainly use any excuse possible to cut services. The "government option" cuts won't begin until they have their monopoly, after the private insurers are run out of town.
page 1296 of the House Bill before I posted.
But as I read this they simply adopt the recommendations as guidelines. So while the regs on the public option will probably say that insurance will not pay for your mammogram till you reach the designated age, you are not prohibited from getting mammograms at any age and at least according to the spokesman for the insurance industry, private insurers have no plans to exclude under 50 mamograms from coverage.
Good pickup though - you must have the memory of an elephant.
1. What is your solution? What would YOU have done on Sept 12, 2001? Have you forgotten that the vote to invade Afghanistan passed unanimously in Congress? Both houses? If I recall correctly, I believe there was one single nay vote. I would have to go back and look to confirm that, but I think that is how the vote went. I don't know where you get the idea that we haven't decimated the top levels of Al Qaeda's leadership. In fact, we have killed or detained 75% of the upper echelons of Al Qaeda.
ABSOLUTELY I believe that the way to deal with countries who harbor terrorists and allow them to train freely without interference should be invaded. You can argue all you want about whether Iraq was justified or not (I believe it was), but it is flat out IDIOTIC to say that Afghanistan should have been left alone when there is essentially NO distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
PS. Actually NO, the dead and wounded would NOT disagree with me. They LOVE their country, that is why they serve, why I served, why my sister has done three tours in Iraq and Afganhistan, and is preparing for yet another deployment. Our soldiers are PROUD to protect and defend their country, even when their Commander in Chief doesn't have enough balls to listen to what his generals say and allows them to dangle like sitting ducks to save his political ass.
2. Yes, the question was what has Obama ACCOMPLISHED. The answer is NOTHING. He has accomplished NOTHING that justifies the Nobel Peace Prize. Even the judges acknowledged that in their statement. They said the award was intended to encourage Obama to do the things he has said he will do. NOT because he had actually DONE anything yet. So you can point to the Nobel Prize all you want. The original question was, what has Obama DONE. Being given an award is not something HE did. See my earlier post about the NFL and the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences giving him an award. Maybe you'll get it then.
3. Your parallel to East Germany is asinine. Honestly, truly, asinine. If this had been East Germany for the past 8 years under Bush, YOU would be in jail right now, make that a gulag actually, for criticizing Bush. Have any men in black suits shown up at your door? No.
4. Yeah actually he is. That's why Hillary is spending so much time in Arab countries, that is why Obama's first interview was with Al Jazeera. Even ABC (All Barack Channel) got dissed.
5. You really are naive hon. Congress is about to pass a bill that will result in the majority of Americans recieving health insurance that is either partially or fully funded by the gov't. With a public option, millions of Americans will get their insurance directly from the gov't. Without a public option, millions of Americans will buy insurance from private companies that is supplemented by the gov't. Do you REALLY think that insurance provided entirely or in part by the gov't is NOT going to follow their own guidelines? Tell me you aren't that naive. Any woman who's insurance is in any way funded by the gov't will have to pay out of her own pocket if she wants a mammorgram before age 50. If the gov't is funding your insurance, the gov't will set the guidelines, and they WILL follow whatever guidelines a gov't agency has set. Its just that simple.
6. Yeah, those are the same gov't hacks who said the stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%, and who have inflated the number of jobs created by as much as 4 times the actual number. Can I interest you in some swampland?
as I acknowledge in the above post.
1. Not the time to offer an alternative solution to invasion but invasion per se is the wrong approach. Only two of the 19 9/11 hijackers trained at those camps and it was purely fortuitious that they did. The 9/11 invasion could have been planned anywhere.
Covert operations is the better approach. Many (most?) of the top al queda guys we got like KSM we got thru covert operations in Pakistan, or we killed them by predator missiles. From everything I read the head count from the invasion was quite small - we mostly killed Afghans.
If you really look at the facts from a cost benefit standpoint, I think you would agree with me. What is missing from your analysis is any weighing of the costs with the benefits achieved.
If the previous one had listened to people fighting terrorists, two planes might not have flown into two buildings.
Big stick policy will never work. It may work against some countries for a while but ends up creating larger enemy pool.
IAEA voted against Iran's nuclear ambitions for the first time. Russia and China opposed all resolutions against Iran every time during the previous one. 25 out of 30 voted for the resolution. 3 did not vote and only Chavez and one another voted against the resolution. Diplomacy works!
Don't believe you have any understanding about diplomacy, people who carry big sticks generally do not.
anonymousfun, UN diplomacy works? Your joking right? How many U.N. resolutions did Sadam Hussein ignore, or outright violate? Something like 15-17 U.N. diplomatic resolutions I believe. What about the U.N. resolutions against the genocide in Darfur? What about the U.N. diplomatic resolutions against the genocide in Ruwanda? Give me a break. The U.N. is as useless as tits on a boar hog.
But I do prefer "President" to "Mr."
With that said, some of these are questionable.
First, if he gets health care through, his greatness will be dependent on how it works. If it works perfectly, he will be great.
However, if it creates huge webs of intergovernmental agencies, boards, commissions, and departments that create paperwork and drain medical recources, it will be terrible.
His "accomplishment" can end up his disaster if we end up with a Brit style system that has one of the largest governmental pay rolls in the world and limits care terribly.
(Also, if his system leads to that because it bankrupts private insurance, the thing it leads to will be at his feet. I am not saying it will, although I think it will. I am just saying, if it doesn't lead to improvements, it is his fault.)
likewise, his improved relations with the Moslem world. Already, they seem to be tiring of him.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558300500152682.html
This is the at least the third similar article I have seen. He hasn't achieved his stated goals, and they are not happy.
This will only be an accomplishment if he achieves something. We can have good relations with the Sudan easily. Just stop being picky about genocide.
Likewise, you say he he won a prize. That isn't for what he did, as much as his popularity with certain groups. There are a couple bad movies that won the Oscar. That doesn't make them good.
You say the stimulus prevented a depression. That is theory. It is equally possible it delayed recovery. (FDR is credited with saving the country with his policies. However, the question remains would different policies have gotten us out of the soup faster. He was in office for 8 years and we were still in a depression when the war started.
The results will tell
the question was what has he accomplished in his first year and the comment on health care was he has brought a national health care bill to the brink of enactment. If the bill turns out to be bad policy, then I agree we have to strike this one but until then it stands in terms of the scope of the question.
I did not say the stimulus prevented a depression. I said " some economists have said that." Not being an economist, I could hardly make such a statement. Of course there are opposing views as there are about virtually every single issue pertaining to the economy.
And I prefer President to Mr. as well except when I am sitting in an airport and posting from my Iphone.
They may all turn out to be right. They may all turn out to be wrong. We have to see on all.
The one thing I do hate is top or worst ten lists that do not exclude the last 15 years, be it presidents, movies, TV shows, or music.
98% of the people don't remember what Ike did (or who he was), and we can't see the results of anything any President does for at least 10 years, so giving the best or worst is meaningless.
Even Obama's "not invading" can be good or bad depending on the outcome.
This is just a hypothetical, but if Iran gets a nuke and uses it first, Isreal may retaliate, and things can go to hell in a hand basket.
Now, let me be clear. I am not advocating we go in to Iran now. But if we don't and that is the result, then peace has its price.
Or we leave the corrupt Afghans to the own pathetic quasi-nation, the Taliban takes over, manages to tip the Pakis, and Al Quaeda gets a nuke. Oh, boy. I am glad I sold my co-op in NYC.
(Again, this is a hypo. I am not advocating a policy. But the President, who ever he is, should not take the job unless he wants to deal with that contingency.)
Likewise, if we don't go into the Sudan, and I don't think we should a million people will die. Again, peace has its price.
I just had coffee with a Swiss friend who was bragging how the Swiss have been at peace for 500 years. Yes, and the big accomplishment of the nation is a ccukco clock and expensive wrist watches for Oil Rich Arabs and Over Paid Movie Stars.
They were at peace in the 40s and they managed to store gold taken from the mouths of Jews who were skinned for lampshades. On the other hand, with their peace loving ways, I forgot how many helped liberate one death camp in Germany or Poland. Hmmm.
WAIT. I forgot guarding the Pope.
Surely even you would agree that it is better for people to be debating "did the President deserve the Nobel Peace Prize," than to have them debating "is the President a war criminal?"
You can't reasonably say that there is a down side to that award. Whether he deserved it or not, it enhances the image of our country and his moral authority as a leader at least until he does something to tarnish that image like invade another country.
recent presidents have... Carter, Nixon, Johnson, GW.... well, not only will the ROW have the right to say he failed... they will also have the right to say "we gave you everything to help you accomplish that which we hoped you would, INCLUDING The No- Bell Prize"
I don't care what people debate.
The fact is that I have very little concern for whether people like us. We should do what we think is good, and if the world doesn't like it, they can do their own version of good.
Popularity between nations means nothing.
Europe has a history of inquisition, murder, war, fascism, communism. Their conduct in the 20th century with 100 million dead does not give them moral authority to say much that concerns me. When did they become arbitrators of morality?
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the world dislikes Israel more than North Korea.
North Korea! How many millions OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS did they kill. Starved. And they killed more in peace than Israel did in war.
Look at the level of freedom in the two countries.
Look at who the world likes less.
Germany has such a good history of moral conduct. And Russian - from tszr to communism to kleptocrat. Now China - again what is their murder quota IN PEACE. 50,000,000?
Yes, I have been in 35 countries and I have seen Mao T-shirts in every one.
People's heroes mean so little to me, I can't express my contempt.
(In fact, in all the countries I was in, including Soviet Russia and Syria, all the people I met who did not go to universities loved America. The intellectual elite dislike it.)
Tell that to the three American hikers who have been imprisoned by Iran since July for straying across the border. Same result if they had been hiking near the Canadian border?
Tell that to the five British yachtmen taken to Iran last week for inadvertently straying into Iranian waters. Same result if they strayed into the waters of France.
Tell that to the two American journalists imprisoned in North Korea for allegedly crossing the border? Same result if they had crossed into Ireland?
You "have very little concern for whether people like us?"
Perhaps you should.
Yes, Iran and North Korea kidnap Americans and Brits who stray to close or accidently stray. And the Canadians don't. SO????
And what does that have to do with my point that I don't care if the Swiss like us? What does that have to do with my point of the rest of the world is not great judge of moral conduct?
France and Canada don't treat people like Iran or N. Korea. It isn't because France likes us and Iran doesn't. It is because France just treats people differently. There have been 40 years of anti-U.S. demonstartions in the streets of Paris, and they don't treat Americans who stray there in that manner the Iranians do. With all the anti-U.S. feeling, they just don't do that.
Ireland doesn't act like Iran. So???
particularly since you are twice quoted as to the points addressed.
Nope. I think it is one of the biggest non sequiturs I have seen in I don't know how long.
I say that I don't care what much of the world thinks because their history sucks, they are not arbiters of good v. bad, and they have a history of pathetic judgments.
You reply that Iran captures Brit sailors but France doesn't.
And that is supposed to make me think that I should care what the Swiss think.
Okay. I admit I can't understand the concept. I will become an judge where my lack of analytical skills won't hurt my prospects. (Shit. I hope you aren't on the bench.)
since they banned the construction of new minarets... given that the insane branch of the Muslim faith will kill you for simply constructing a cartoon... well you can see where this would lead....
yea, you know things are pretty bad when even the Swiss see danger in an architectural style... what's next... the Swedes takin back the AL Gore NO- Bell prize...
there may be hope for the You're-a-peeins yet....
On the negative side ...
He has failed in turning around some of Bush's bad policies; or in even questioning their basis.
While he has slightly addressed Gitmo, he has done nothing about the secret prisons around the world, hasn't questioned the real objective in Iraq, etc.
On the positive side ...
He has failed to move forward much in the way of new legislation.
We already have so many laws that a lot of industries have to employ full-time legal staff just to figure out compliance issues -- and often even trained regulatory attorneys are just guessing.
Our tax code is so damned complex even CPAs get it wrong; and the government won't even be responsible for its own advice regarding compliance.
I see the failure to move forward new legislation as a distinct plus.
we agree again!!!!!
''I see the failure to move forward new legislation as a distinct plus.''
- But I give him an F, because EVERYDAY one of his RADICAL, and Anti American policies cant be passed, is another day I worried about it..THIS PRESIDENT IS CAUSING ME GREAT STRESS!!!