Why are people mad when the President acts the same way he did before he was elected?

EGarrett · 24th October 2009, 09:33 AM

Everyone got furious at Bill Clinton for having sex in the Oval Office and cheating on his wife...he was having affairs with Gennifer Flowers and apparently sexually harassing women in the Governor's office for years.

Obama was a really intelligent, charismatic guy who made great speeches and didn't accomplish anything before he was in office...now he's...a really intelligent, charismatic President who makes great speeches and doesn't get much done.

Dubya didn't care that much for politics, and I'm sure if you look into his governmental record you'll find the same weaknesses as governor of Texas that people believe he had as President. (I didn't pay attention to him as governor of Texas so I can't state that as fact).

Um, aren't these guys the same human beings they were before election? We got what we put in the shopping cart people.

Oliver · 24th October 2009, 09:47 AM

Well, if you prefer to blame Obama himself for not accomplishing anything, you might want to do some homework concerning political opposition first.

Also, Bush was a horrible president due to the fact that he and his fellows didn't face much opposition at all in the wake of 9/11.

EGarrett · 24th October 2009, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Well, if you prefer to blame Obama himself for not accomplishing anything, you might want to do some homework concerning political opposition first.

1. Which party controls the Senate?
2. What political opposition is there that we didn't expect during the 2008 campaign?

Quote:

Also, Bush was a horrible president due to the fact that he and his fellows didn't face much opposition at all in the wake of 9/11.

I didn't say that Bush was a good President. I'm saying that for the time I've been alive and paying some amount of attention to politics, each President has been the same person in office that he was before he was elected...they didn't magically change upon taking the Oath. There's a weird sense of outrage towards Obama from his own party for him demonstrating the same set of strengths and weaknesses that he has over the last 4 years. As though they're surprised or disappointed.

drkitten · 24th October 2009, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

1. Which party controls the Senate?

Neither.

Although the Democrats have a nominal majority, the rules of the Senate explicitly allow a minority to block action; a "nominal majority" is not enough to control.

You should also ask yourself who controls the Democratic party. You might be surprised to realize that the answer, again, is "no one." In particular, Obama does not control the Democratic party, although he certainly has a fair amount of influence.

Policenaut · 24th October 2009, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

There's a weird sense of outrage towards Obama from his own party for him demonstrating the same set of strengths and weaknesses that he has over the last 4 years. As though they're surprised or disappointed.

Lots of people bought into the hype and slogans.

portlandatheist · 24th October 2009, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Well, if you prefer to blame Obama himself for not accomplishing anything, you might want to do some homework concerning political opposition first.

Also, Bush was a horrible president due to the fact that he and his fellows didn't face much opposition at all in the wake of 9/11.

WTF?

Earthborn · 24th October 2009, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I'm saying that for the time I've been alive and paying some amount of attention to politics, each President has been the same person in office that he was before he was elected...

You may also have noticed that the people who get angry at a president for being the person he was before being president are usually the people who wanted a different president to begin with.

Perhaps it is not so surprising that the people a wanted a different president, want the president to be different.

Meadmaker · 24th October 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Um, aren't these guys the same human beings they were before election? We got what we put in the shopping cart people.

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

However, I expect we'll see Obama "get something done". I think we will have meaningful health care "reform". It won't be perfect, but it will change the American economic landscape at least a little.

On a different point, not "everyone" changed their minds about presidents once they got into office. "Everyone" didn't get outraged about Bill Clinton's sexual interests. In fact, most of us didn't care. A lot of people who liked Obama, still like Obama. What happens is that once someone actually becomes President, the opposition gets more unified and louder, because they have specific targets every news cycle.

drkitten · 24th October 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

You may also have noticed that the people who get angry at a president for being the person he was before being president are usually the people who wanted a different president to begin with.

Not really. Look, for example, at how a President's approval ratings usually decline over time.

Certainly, the people how start out disliking a President are more likely to continue to dislike him. But there's also an aspect of broken promises and such that's likely to bother people as time goes on. For example, Obama the candidate promised (July 28, 2008) to work for the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy; most legal scholars accept that he could do so with a single signature, simply by ordering all proceedings under the relevant act to stop.

Why hasn't he done so? And if DADT was one of the reasons a person supported his candidacy, wouldn't that be a good reason to "get angry" at Obama?

And similarly for Bush's "compassionate conservativism" promise, which was abandoned more or less as soon as he got into office.

Upchurch · 24th October 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

WTF?

He probably means it took the Democrats several years after 9/11to work up the cojones to give any real push back against Bush. They rolled over on both the Patriot Act and Iraq.

GreNME · 24th October 2009, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Everyone got furious at Bill Clinton for having sex in the Oval Office and cheating on his wife...he was having affairs with Gennifer Flowers and apparently sexually harassing women in the Governor's office for years.

Obama was a really intelligent, charismatic guy who made great speeches and didn't accomplish anything before he was in office...now he's...a really intelligent, charismatic President who makes great speeches and doesn't get much done.

Dubya didn't care that much for politics, and I'm sure if you look into his governmental record you'll find the same weaknesses as governor of Texas that people believe he had as President. (I didn't pay attention to him as governor of Texas so I can't state that as fact).

Um, aren't these guys the same human beings they were before election? We got what we put in the shopping cart people.

Do you make a habit of posting bad faith arguments?

Seriously, achieving a first at the Harvard Law Review, two books, professor of Constitutional Law, and terms in state senate counts as "doesn't get much done" in your world?

Dragoonster · 24th October 2009, 01:32 PM

Not sure I understand, the way he acted before he was elected is saying/promising/implying what he'd do once elected. So far there are several important things that he's failed to deliver on. He isn't acting the same as he did before elected, for the most part. And as he's President now, the occasions he does act the same (the recent speech again implying he'll overturn DADT [or was it DOMA]) are not in the same context. He isn't campaigning anymore, he's got the job and needs to start doing it.

GreNME · 24th October 2009, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dragoonster

So far there are several important things that he's failed to deliver on.

Like what? I mean, taking into account he's only nine months into office, which things has he failed to deliver on? Or do the things he's in the process of trying to deliver on not count?

Dragoonster · 24th October 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Like what? I mean, taking into account he's only nine months into office, which things has he failed to deliver on? Or do the things he's in the process of trying to deliver on not count?

They don't count until they're done, as for any president. If they did, Clinton would've reapealed DADT and passed a UHC bill. Bush would've gotten a two-state solution.

The things I'm thinking of could've been done very quickly, as in they don't require Congress. Repealing DADT, reversing Bush's state secrets trend, forcing the AG to either try or release detainees (or have that more clearly the goal). He could've also set many clear policy changes, but has done less of that than I'd like.

And in many cases he's done the opposite of what was expected, basically continuing some of Bush's transgressions, like FISA. It's only nine months but the trend isn't looking good, at least for optimistic liberals who thought he'd change a lot of things from the previous administration. Or who thought he'd take quick and clear stands on things like gay rights.

He does deserve more time of course, the recent Nobel Prize perhaps unfairly contributed to early evaluations. But if we're forced to grade him against what we thought his Presidency would've done after 9 months (and hoped it wouldn't have done), I'd give him a C.

GreNME · 24th October 2009, 04:31 PM

Okay, that's an understandably cautious assessment. I have no problem with that.

EGarrett · 24th October 2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Neither.

Although the Democrats have a nominal majority, the rules of the Senate explicitly allow a minority to block action; a "nominal majority" is not enough to control.

You should also ask yourself who controls the Democratic party. You might be surprised to realize that the answer, again, is "no one." In particular, Obama does not control the Democratic party, although he certainly has a fair amount of influence.

The notion that the Democratic party is fighting Obama or holding him back is silly.

Originally Posted by Earthborn

You may also have noticed that the people who get angry at a president for being the person he was before being president are usually the people who wanted a different president to begin with.

Perhaps it is not so surprising that the people a wanted a different president, want the president to be different.

Nope. I said specifically that his OWN party is getting angry at him.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Do you make a habit of posting bad faith arguments?

Seriously, achieving a first at the Harvard Law Review, two books, professor of Constitutional Law, and terms in state senate counts as "doesn't get much done" in your world?

Not for a Presidential candidate.

drkitten · 24th October 2009, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

The notion that the Democratic party is fighting Obama or holding him back is silly.

Except that's exactly what's happening, esp. with the Blue Dog Democrats in the senate.

GreNME · 24th October 2009, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Originally Posted by GreNME

Do you make a habit of posting bad faith arguments?

Seriously, achieving a first at the Harvard Law Review, two books, professor of Constitutional Law, and terms in state senate counts as "doesn't get much done" in your world?

Not for a Presidential candidate.

So, being very demonstrably intelligent, with more than sufficient knowledge of Constitutional Law (which the Oval Office hasn't seen in a while), and experience in coalition-building and the legislative process isn't enough experience?

Seriously, EGarrett, every one of your threads in this subforum has had the distinct air of bad faith, not to mention the logical fallacies at the core of the arguments. I know you can do better than this. What is it about the current POTUS that you dislike on such a personal level? At least the normal crowd is open about their hostility.

elbe · 24th October 2009, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

The notion that the Democratic party is fighting Obama or holding him back is silly.

The democrats are not a particularly unified party, they aren't as good at toeing the party line as the republicans are.

TShaitanaku · 24th October 2009, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Neither.

Although the Democrats have a nominal majority, the rules of the Senate explicitly allow a minority to block action; a "nominal majority" is not enough to control.

You should also ask yourself who controls the Democratic party. You might be surprised to realize that the answer, again, is "no one." In particular, Obama does not control the Democratic party, although he certainly has a fair amount of influence.

There is nothing nominal about 60 Senate seats, Bush never had a sixty seat majority and he seemed to accomplish a lot more than any of us felt comfortable with.

If Obama can't control his own party, he shouldn't have been chosen to represent it in the Executive branch. Technically the president is the leader of his party.

mhaze · 24th October 2009, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

....Obama was a really intelligent.....

I recall asking you before the election, and I will ask you again now.

Can you show some writings of Obama's from the past which proves that he's got a grain or two upstairs?

Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant, but since you use it as a premise to the argument which follows, it bears some examination.

GreNME · 24th October 2009, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

I recall asking you before the election, and I will ask you again now.

Can you show some writings of Obama's from the past which proves that he's got a grain or two upstairs?

Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant, but since you use it as a premise to the argument which follows, it bears some examination.

Considering you seem to be under the impression that a copyright lawsuit somehow addresses accusations of a certain right-wing commentator having non-consensual sex with and then causing the life to stop of a young person of the female gender some nineteen years ago, I have to say I find my faith in your ability to judge intelligence to be suspect in nature.

Newtons Bit · 24th October 2009, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

There is nothing nominal about 60 Senate seats, Bush never had a sixty seat majority and he seemed to accomplish a lot more than any of us felt comfortable with.

If Obama can't control his own party, he shouldn't have been chosen to represent it in the Executive branch. Technically the president is the leader of his party.

In fairness to Obama, the Democrat party has a huge width of ideologies in its membership now. People who may have been Republicans 20 years ago are called Blue Dogs today. People who favor a far-left position are still in the Democrat party.

It's really hard to reconcile those two groups. Furthermore, it's really not his job to keep the troops in line.

eeyore1954 · 24th October 2009, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

I recall asking you before the election, and I will ask you again now.

Can you show some writings of Obama's from the past which proves that he's got a grain or two upstairs?

Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant, but since you use it as a premise to the argument which follows, it bears some examination.

If he wasn't really intelligent he would not have gotten into Harvard Law School and he would not have graduated with top grades. Whatever you may think about President Obama he is obviously very intelligent.

TShaitanaku · 24th October 2009, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by elbe

The democrats are not a particularly unified party, they aren't as good at toeing the party line as the republicans are.

Its more an issue of not having as clear a party line. Democratic, at least for the last 6-8 years has amounted to "not neocon Republican," which is fine as an opposition party, but makes for an almost impossible governing composition.

elbe · 24th October 2009, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Its more an issue of not having as clear a party line. Democratic, at least for the last 6-8 years has amounted to "not neocon Republican," which is fine as an opposition party, but makes for an almost impossible governing composition.

To some degree, but because of the party system those two parties become big tent parties with people from various stripes of society only vaguely associated politically. The Dems, individually, have positions, but they don't all agree on any of them.

Personally, I think intra-party conflict is probably the closest we'll get to a multi-party system and that it's generally a good thing, but makes the republicans, relatively, more powerful with fewer people needed when they can better toe the party line.

Dragoonster · 24th October 2009, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Its more an issue of not having as clear a party line. Democratic, at least for the last 6-8 years has amounted to "not neocon Republican," which is fine as an opposition party, but makes for an almost impossible governing composition.

It's also an issue of Democrats being spineless and favoring reelection over principle. These "not neocon Republicans" voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq war, and FISA, and all sorts of other initiatives, hardly ever challenging them with anything other than words. The huge litmus test was threatening to not refund the War in Bush's second term, and they quickly crumbled to pressure and personal fear. They've shown a startling lack of willingness to make hard decisions, and it's not a suprise that they lack sand even when they're in power.

That's a generalization but is true for many of them. Obama is new and certainly earns his criticisms, but all Democrats in Congress have been far more of a dissapointment for the last 9 years. I was hoping Biden would be Obama's "pit bull" in getting Congress to show some balls, but so far doesn't seem like that's happening.

TShaitanaku · 24th October 2009, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

In fairness to Obama, the Democrat party has a huge width of ideologies in its membership now. People who may have been Republicans 20 years ago are called Blue Dogs today. People who favor a far-left position are still in the Democrat party.

It's really hard to reconcile those two groups. Furthermore, it's really not his job to keep the troops in line.

Actually, it ultimately and practically is one of his main jobs, at least from the perspective of the party that nominates him to represent their platform and members.

Quote:

"...There is a fifth class of powers, or to speak more accurately a form of official influence, which the president does not assume from this source [re: the constitution and laws of the US as interpreted by the courts], but which he possess by virtue of his position as leader-in-chief of his political party. The president is a partisan, elected as such. The National Committee of his party is so organized to be in sympathy with him..."

pg. 123, The Government of the United States, National, State and Localby William Bennett Munro

TShaitanaku · 24th October 2009, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by elbe

To some degree, but because of the party system those two parties become big tent parties with people from various stripes of society only vaguely associated politically. The Dems, individually, have positions, but they don't all agree on any of them.

Personally, I think intra-party conflict is probably the closest we'll get to a multi-party system and that it's generally a good thing, but makes the republicans, relatively, more powerful with fewer people needed when they can better toe the party line.

Personally, I'd prefer that political parties be banned and outlawed, but that is about as likely as a viable multiparty system in modern era American politics, so I guess there's little sense in utopian druthers. Yes, parties that have diversity are better than two monolithic parties that only represent two opposing perspectives, but that doesn't reflect reality either, such parties could not exist as they would only represent such narrow slices of electorate that neither would long survive. In reality there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats, and that is where the real problem lies,...IMO.

TShaitanaku · 24th October 2009, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dragoonster

It's also an issue of Democrats being spineless and favoring reelection over principle. These "not neocon Republicans" voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq war, and FISA, and all sorts of other initiatives, hardly ever challenging them with anything other than words. The huge litmus test was threatening to not refund the War in Bush's second term, and they quickly crumbled to pressure and personal fear. They've shown a startling lack of willingness to make hard decisions, and it's not a suprise that they lack sand even when they're in power.

That's a generalization but is true for many of them. Obama is new and certainly earns his criticisms, but all Democrats in Congress have been far more of a dissapointment for the last 9 years. I was hoping Biden would be Obama's "pit bull" in getting Congress to show some balls, but so far doesn't seem like that's happening.

While I disagree with much of your second paragraph, you are preaching to the choir in the first paragraph.

Newtons Bit · 24th October 2009, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Actually, it ultimately and practically is one of his main jobs, at least from the perspective of the party that nominates him to represent their platform and members.

I'm referring to the party whips. They're the enforcers. They keep the troops in line. Each party has a member in the Senate and the House whose sole responsibility (in addition to being an elected official) is to enforce party line.

You've heard of whips before, right?

TShaitanaku · 24th October 2009, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I'm referring to the party whips. They're the enforcers. They keep the troops in line. Each party has a member in the Senate and the House whose sole responsibility (in addition to being an elected official) is to enforce party line.

You've heard of whips before, right?

Whips are important, though even they are accountable to the leader of the party, which is the president. If there is party disunity, it is ultimately the responsibility of the president to rein in such problems and resolve them.

GreNME · 24th October 2009, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Whips are important, though even they are accountable to the leader of the party, which is the president.

So much fail.

Rika · 25th October 2009, 02:51 AM

the leader of the party typically (as close as can be found) is the head of the DNC/RNC.

... typically. In practice there is no real leader among the Democrats.

leftysergeant · 25th October 2009, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rika

... typically. In practice there is no real leader among the Democrats.

Which is actually one of the reasons that people concerned about a loss of our liberties should vote Democratic.

Sure, our gatherings look like a cat round up, but the lack of loyalty to a cultic fidure like the Shrub or Reagan were to the GOP just means that it would be harder for a tyrant to steamroll the rest of the country into submission.

Mumbles · 25th October 2009, 08:12 AM

I find the whole "Obama hasn't done anything" idea to be silly - the stimulus, credit reform, and the Bedletter act are obvious counterexamples.

Originally Posted by drkitten

Certainly, the people how start out disliking a President are more likely to continue to dislike him. But there's also an aspect of broken promises and such that's likely to bother people as time goes on. For example, Obama the candidate promised (July 28, 2008) to work for the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy; most legal scholars accept that he could do so with a single signature, simply by ordering all proceedings under the relevant act to stop.

I doubt the majority of scholars have said any such thing - the president absolutely cannot repeal signed congressional laws simply by say-so. At the very best, Obama could order the military to ignore DADT, which is a fake solution. The next president could simply require enforcement, which would toss out every gay military member that came out of the closet during Obama's presidency. A congressional appeal, at the very least, will make it more difficult for any single person down the line to say "nope, gays have got to go".

theprestige · 25th October 2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

I find the whole "Obama hasn't done anything" idea to be silly - the stimulus, credit reform, and the Bedletter act are obvious counterexamples.

How has that stimulus been working out for you? Are you sure it's something worth taking credit for? As for the other two, okay--credit refrom, the Bedletter act--now it's "obvious" why he was awarded the Peace prize.

I mean, seriously, if you're going to give him credit for being in office while the legislature knocked out some easy and obvious stuff for him to sign, then sure, he's accomplished a lot. But so has every president. It's like the points you get for filling in the First Name and Last Name fields on the SAT answer form. Nobody cares about the first ten points; it's the last couple hundred or so that give the measure of the man.

Mumbles · 25th October 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

How has that stimulus been working out for you? Are you sure it's something worth taking credit for? As for the other two, okay--credit refrom, the Bedletter act--now it's "obvious" why he was awarded the Peace prize.

I mean, seriously, if you're going to give him credit for being in office while the legislature knocked out some easy and obvious stuff for him to sign, then sure, he's accomplished a lot. But so has every president. It's like the points you get for filling in the First Name and Last Name fields on the SAT answer form. Nobody cares about the first ten points; it's the last couple hundred or so that give the measure of the man.

You're confused - the claim was that Obama "doesn't get much done", which is clearly false. Whether or not you like what he's done is a separate question.

theprestige · 25th October 2009, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

You're confused - the claim was that Obama "doesn't get much done", which is clearly false. Whether or not you like what he's done is a separate question.

I'm not confused at all. I'm saying that your list of things he's gotten done: the stimulus, the credit card reform, the Bedletter Act--are things that any president could have gotten done. Sarah Palin or Joe Biden could have gotten them done, simply by being in the Oval Office when the Legislature couriered over the relevant documents for an Executive signature. How much credit, really, should he get for following through on a stimulus plan initiated during the previous administration?

Mumbles · 25th October 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not confused at all. I'm saying that your list of things he's gotten done: the stimulus, the credit card reform, the Bedletter Act--are things that any president could have gotten done. Sarah Palin or Joe Biden could have gotten them done, simply by being in the Oval Office when the Legislature couriered over the relevant documents for an Executive signature. How much credit, really, should he get for following through on a stimulus plan initiated during the previous administration?

Actually, the first Ledbetter act was killed by senate republicans, and the second was thoroughly rejected by house GOP members, so it's questionable to claim that a republican president would have pushed for, or signed it. Similarly, credit reform and the stimulus package were clearly democratic efforts - both were actually Obama campaign pledges, taken up by congress specifically because of this, and opposed by most of the GOP in the house and senate.

24th October 2009, 09:33 AM	#1
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,040	Why are people mad when the President acts the same way he did before he was elected? Everyone got furious at Bill Clinton for having sex in the Oval Office and cheating on his wife...he was having affairs with Gennifer Flowers and apparently sexually harassing women in the Governor's office for years. Obama was a really intelligent, charismatic guy who made great speeches and didn't accomplish anything before he was in office...now he's...a really intelligent, charismatic President who makes great speeches and doesn't get much done. Dubya didn't care that much for politics, and I'm sure if you look into his governmental record you'll find the same weaknesses as governor of Texas that people believe he had as President. (I didn't pay attention to him as governor of Texas so I can't state that as fact). Um, aren't these guys the same human beings they were before election? We got what we put in the shopping cart people.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,040	__________________ EG

24th October 2009, 09:47 AM	#2
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	Well, if you prefer to blame Obama himself for not accomplishing anything, you might want to do some homework concerning political opposition first. Also, Bush was a horrible president due to the fact that he and his fellows didn't face much opposition at all in the wake of 9/11.
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 16,228	__________________ εχΧọή MФBĪLE CǾNFĮŔMS GLФв∆L ΨĂЯMΐNĢ

24th October 2009, 10:10 AM	#3
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,040	Originally Posted by Oliver Well, if you prefer to blame Obama himself for not accomplishing anything, you might want to do some homework concerning political opposition first. 1. Which party controls the Senate? 2. What political opposition is there that we didn't expect during the 2008 campaign? Quote: Also, Bush was a horrible president due to the fact that he and his fellows didn't face much opposition at all in the wake of 9/11. I didn't say that Bush was a good President. I'm saying that for the time I've been alive and paying some amount of attention to politics, each President has been the same person in office that he was before he was elected...they didn't magically change upon taking the Oath. There's a weird sense of outrage towards Obama from his own party for him demonstrating the same set of strengths and weaknesses that he has over the last 4 years. As though they're surprised or disappointed.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,040	__________________ EG

24th October 2009, 11:53 AM	#7
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 4,572	Originally Posted by EGarrett I'm saying that for the time I've been alive and paying some amount of attention to politics, each President has been the same person in office that he was before he was elected... You may also have noticed that the people who get angry at a president for being the person he was before being president are usually the people who wanted a different president to begin with. Perhaps it is not so surprising that the people a wanted a different president, want the president to be different.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

24th October 2009, 12:03 PM	#8
Meadmaker Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 8,113	Originally Posted by EGarrett Um, aren't these guys the same human beings they were before election? We got what we put in the shopping cart people. I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, I expect we'll see Obama "get something done". I think we will have meaningful health care "reform". It won't be perfect, but it will change the American economic landscape at least a little. On a different point, not "everyone" changed their minds about presidents once they got into office. "Everyone" didn't get outraged about Bill Clinton's sexual interests. In fact, most of us didn't care. A lot of people who liked Obama, still like Obama. What happens is that once someone actually becomes President, the opposition gets more unified and louder, because they have specific targets every news cycle.
	__________________ Dave

24th October 2009, 10:17 AM	#4
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by EGarrett 1. Which party controls the Senate? Neither. Although the Democrats have a nominal majority, the rules of the Senate explicitly allow a minority to block action; a "nominal majority" is not enough to control. You should also ask yourself who controls the Democratic party. You might be surprised to realize that the answer, again, is "no one." In particular, Obama does not control the Democratic party, although he certainly has a fair amount of influence.

24th October 2009, 10:43 AM	#5
Policenaut Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Shadow Moses Island Posts: 1,331	Originally Posted by EGarrett There's a weird sense of outrage towards Obama from his own party for him demonstrating the same set of strengths and weaknesses that he has over the last 4 years. As though they're surprised or disappointed. Lots of people bought into the hype and slogans.

24th October 2009, 11:41 AM	#6
portlandatheist Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,162	Originally Posted by Oliver Well, if you prefer to blame Obama himself for not accomplishing anything, you might want to do some homework concerning political opposition first. Also, Bush was a horrible president due to the fact that he and his fellows didn't face much opposition at all in the wake of 9/11. WTF?

24th October 2009, 12:03 PM	#9
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Earthborn You may also have noticed that the people who get angry at a president for being the person he was before being president are usually the people who wanted a different president to begin with. Not really. Look, for example, at how a President's approval ratings usually decline over time. Certainly, the people how start out disliking a President are more likely to continue to dislike him. But there's also an aspect of broken promises and such that's likely to bother people as time goes on. For example, Obama the candidate promised (July 28, 2008) to work for the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy; most legal scholars accept that he could do so with a single signature, simply by ordering all proceedings under the relevant act to stop. Why hasn't he done so? And if DADT was one of the reasons a person supported his candidacy, wouldn't that be a good reason to "get angry" at Obama? And similarly for Bush's "compassionate conservativism" promise, which was abandoned more or less as soon as he got into office.

24th October 2009, 12:33 PM	#10
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 19,555	Originally Posted by portlandatheist WTF? He probably means it took the Democrats several years after 9/11to work up the cojones to give any real push back against Bush. They rolled over on both the Patriot Act and Iraq.

24th October 2009, 12:38 PM	#11
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by EGarrett Everyone got furious at Bill Clinton for having sex in the Oval Office and cheating on his wife...he was having affairs with Gennifer Flowers and apparently sexually harassing women in the Governor's office for years. Obama was a really intelligent, charismatic guy who made great speeches and didn't accomplish anything before he was in office...now he's...a really intelligent, charismatic President who makes great speeches and doesn't get much done. Dubya didn't care that much for politics, and I'm sure if you look into his governmental record you'll find the same weaknesses as governor of Texas that people believe he had as President. (I didn't pay attention to him as governor of Texas so I can't state that as fact). Um, aren't these guys the same human beings they were before election? We got what we put in the shopping cart people. Do you make a habit of posting bad faith arguments? Seriously, achieving a first at the Harvard Law Review, two books, professor of Constitutional Law, and terms in state senate counts as "doesn't get much done" in your world?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

24th October 2009, 01:32 PM	#12
Dragoonster Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 941	Not sure I understand, the way he acted before he was elected is saying/promising/implying what he'd do once elected. So far there are several important things that he's failed to deliver on. He isn't acting the same as he did before elected, for the most part. And as he's President now, the occasions he does act the same (the recent speech again implying he'll overturn DADT [or was it DOMA]) are not in the same context. He isn't campaigning anymore, he's got the job and needs to start doing it.
Dragoonster Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 941

24th October 2009, 02:44 PM	#13
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by Dragoonster So far there are several important things that he's failed to deliver on. Like what? I mean, taking into account he's only nine months into office, which things has he failed to deliver on? Or do the things he's in the process of trying to deliver on not count?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

24th October 2009, 03:04 PM	#14
Dragoonster Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 941	Originally Posted by GreNME Like what? I mean, taking into account he's only nine months into office, which things has he failed to deliver on? Or do the things he's in the process of trying to deliver on not count? They don't count until they're done, as for any president. If they did, Clinton would've reapealed DADT and passed a UHC bill. Bush would've gotten a two-state solution. The things I'm thinking of could've been done very quickly, as in they don't require Congress. Repealing DADT, reversing Bush's state secrets trend, forcing the AG to either try or release detainees (or have that more clearly the goal). He could've also set many clear policy changes, but has done less of that than I'd like. And in many cases he's done the opposite of what was expected, basically continuing some of Bush's transgressions, like FISA. It's only nine months but the trend isn't looking good, at least for optimistic liberals who thought he'd change a lot of things from the previous administration. Or who thought he'd take quick and clear stands on things like gay rights. He does deserve more time of course, the recent Nobel Prize perhaps unfairly contributed to early evaluations. But if we're forced to grade him against what we thought his Presidency would've done after 9 months (and hoped it wouldn't have done), I'd give him a C.
Dragoonster Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 941

24th October 2009, 04:31 PM	#15
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Okay, that's an understandably cautious assessment. I have no problem with that.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

24th October 2009, 05:31 PM	#16
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,040	Originally Posted by drkitten Neither. Although the Democrats have a nominal majority, the rules of the Senate explicitly allow a minority to block action; a "nominal majority" is not enough to control. You should also ask yourself who controls the Democratic party. You might be surprised to realize that the answer, again, is "no one." In particular, Obama does not control the Democratic party, although he certainly has a fair amount of influence. The notion that the Democratic party is fighting Obama or holding him back is silly. Originally Posted by Earthborn You may also have noticed that the people who get angry at a president for being the person he was before being president are usually the people who wanted a different president to begin with. Perhaps it is not so surprising that the people a wanted a different president, want the president to be different. Nope. I said specifically that his OWN party is getting angry at him. Originally Posted by GreNME Do you make a habit of posting bad faith arguments? Seriously, achieving a first at the Harvard Law Review, two books, professor of Constitutional Law, and terms in state senate counts as "doesn't get much done" in your world? Not for a Presidential candidate.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,040	__________________ EG

24th October 2009, 05:32 PM	#17
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by EGarrett The notion that the Democratic party is fighting Obama or holding him back is silly. Except that's exactly what's happening, esp. with the Blue Dog Democrats in the senate.

24th October 2009, 06:23 PM	#18
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by EGarrett Originally Posted by GreNME Do you make a habit of posting bad faith arguments? Seriously, achieving a first at the Harvard Law Review, two books, professor of Constitutional Law, and terms in state senate counts as "doesn't get much done" in your world? Not for a Presidential candidate. So, being very demonstrably intelligent, with more than sufficient knowledge of Constitutional Law (which the Oval Office hasn't seen in a while), and experience in coalition-building and the legislative process isn't enough experience? Seriously, EGarrett, every one of your threads in this subforum has had the distinct air of bad faith, not to mention the logical fallacies at the core of the arguments. I know you can do better than this. What is it about the current POTUS that you dislike on such a personal level? At least the normal crowd is open about their hostility.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

24th October 2009, 06:33 PM	#19
elbe Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 828	Originally Posted by EGarrett The notion that the Democratic party is fighting Obama or holding him back is silly. The democrats are not a particularly unified party, they aren't as good at toeing the party line as the republicans are.
	__________________ "The mirror stares you in the face and says 'Baby, uh-huh, it don't work'" A blog, of sorts

24th October 2009, 07:03 PM	#20
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by drkitten Neither. Although the Democrats have a nominal majority, the rules of the Senate explicitly allow a minority to block action; a "nominal majority" is not enough to control. You should also ask yourself who controls the Democratic party. You might be surprised to realize that the answer, again, is "no one." In particular, Obama does not control the Democratic party, although he certainly has a fair amount of influence. There is nothing nominal about 60 Senate seats, Bush never had a sixty seat majority and he seemed to accomplish a lot more than any of us felt comfortable with. If Obama can't control his own party, he shouldn't have been chosen to represent it in the Executive branch. Technically the president is the leader of his party.
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

24th October 2009, 07:07 PM	#21
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by EGarrett ....Obama was a really intelligent..... I recall asking you before the election, and I will ask you again now. Can you show some writings of Obama's from the past which proves that he's got a grain or two upstairs? Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant, but since you use it as a premise to the argument which follows, it bears some examination.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

24th October 2009, 07:19 PM	#22
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by mhaze I recall asking you before the election, and I will ask you again now. Can you show some writings of Obama's from the past which proves that he's got a grain or two upstairs? Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant, but since you use it as a premise to the argument which follows, it bears some examination. Considering you seem to be under the impression that a copyright lawsuit somehow addresses accusations of a certain right-wing commentator having non-consensual sex with and then causing the life to stop of a young person of the female gender some nineteen years ago, I have to say I find my faith in your ability to judge intelligence to be suspect in nature.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

24th October 2009, 07:24 PM	#23
Newtons Bit Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,612	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku There is nothing nominal about 60 Senate seats, Bush never had a sixty seat majority and he seemed to accomplish a lot more than any of us felt comfortable with. If Obama can't control his own party, he shouldn't have been chosen to represent it in the Executive branch. Technically the president is the leader of his party. In fairness to Obama, the Democrat party has a huge width of ideologies in its membership now. People who may have been Republicans 20 years ago are called Blue Dogs today. People who favor a far-left position are still in the Democrat party. It's really hard to reconcile those two groups. Furthermore, it's really not his job to keep the troops in line.
	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

24th October 2009, 07:30 PM	#24
eeyore1954 Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 733	Originally Posted by mhaze I recall asking you before the election, and I will ask you again now. Can you show some writings of Obama's from the past which proves that he's got a grain or two upstairs? Your opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant, but since you use it as a premise to the argument which follows, it bears some examination. If he wasn't really intelligent he would not have gotten into Harvard Law School and he would not have graduated with top grades. Whatever you may think about President Obama he is obviously very intelligent.
eeyore1954 Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 733

24th October 2009, 07:50 PM	#25
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by elbe The democrats are not a particularly unified party, they aren't as good at toeing the party line as the republicans are. Its more an issue of not having as clear a party line. Democratic, at least for the last 6-8 years has amounted to "not neocon Republican," which is fine as an opposition party, but makes for an almost impossible governing composition.
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

24th October 2009, 07:58 PM	#26
elbe Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 828	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku Its more an issue of not having as clear a party line. Democratic, at least for the last 6-8 years has amounted to "not neocon Republican," which is fine as an opposition party, but makes for an almost impossible governing composition. To some degree, but because of the party system those two parties become big tent parties with people from various stripes of society only vaguely associated politically. The Dems, individually, have positions, but they don't all agree on any of them. Personally, I think intra-party conflict is probably the closest we'll get to a multi-party system and that it's generally a good thing, but makes the republicans, relatively, more powerful with fewer people needed when they can better toe the party line.
	__________________ "The mirror stares you in the face and says 'Baby, uh-huh, it don't work'" A blog, of sorts

24th October 2009, 08:07 PM	#27
Dragoonster Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 941	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku Its more an issue of not having as clear a party line. Democratic, at least for the last 6-8 years has amounted to "not neocon Republican," which is fine as an opposition party, but makes for an almost impossible governing composition. It's also an issue of Democrats being spineless and favoring reelection over principle. These "not neocon Republicans" voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq war, and FISA, and all sorts of other initiatives, hardly ever challenging them with anything other than words. The huge litmus test was threatening to not refund the War in Bush's second term, and they quickly crumbled to pressure and personal fear. They've shown a startling lack of willingness to make hard decisions, and it's not a suprise that they lack sand even when they're in power. That's a generalization but is true for many of them. Obama is new and certainly earns his criticisms, but all Democrats in Congress have been far more of a dissapointment for the last 9 years. I was hoping Biden would be Obama's "pit bull" in getting Congress to show some balls, but so far doesn't seem like that's happening.
Dragoonster Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 941

24th October 2009, 08:08 PM	#28
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit In fairness to Obama, the Democrat party has a huge width of ideologies in its membership now. People who may have been Republicans 20 years ago are called Blue Dogs today. People who favor a far-left position are still in the Democrat party. It's really hard to reconcile those two groups. Furthermore, it's really not his job to keep the troops in line. Actually, it ultimately and practically is one of his main jobs, at least from the perspective of the party that nominates him to represent their platform and members. Quote: "...There is a fifth class of powers, or to speak more accurately a form of official influence, which the president does not assume from this source [re: the constitution and laws of the US as interpreted by the courts], but which he possess by virtue of his position as leader-in-chief of his political party. The president is a partisan, elected as such. The National Committee of his party is so organized to be in sympathy with him..." pg. 123, The Government of the United States, National, State and Localby William Bennett Munro
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

24th October 2009, 08:22 PM	#29
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by elbe To some degree, but because of the party system those two parties become big tent parties with people from various stripes of society only vaguely associated politically. The Dems, individually, have positions, but they don't all agree on any of them. Personally, I think intra-party conflict is probably the closest we'll get to a multi-party system and that it's generally a good thing, but makes the republicans, relatively, more powerful with fewer people needed when they can better toe the party line. Personally, I'd prefer that political parties be banned and outlawed, but that is about as likely as a viable multiparty system in modern era American politics, so I guess there's little sense in utopian druthers. Yes, parties that have diversity are better than two monolithic parties that only represent two opposing perspectives, but that doesn't reflect reality either, such parties could not exist as they would only represent such narrow slices of electorate that neither would long survive. In reality there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats, and that is where the real problem lies,...IMO.
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

24th October 2009, 08:24 PM	#30
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Dragoonster It's also an issue of Democrats being spineless and favoring reelection over principle. These "not neocon Republicans" voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq war, and FISA, and all sorts of other initiatives, hardly ever challenging them with anything other than words. The huge litmus test was threatening to not refund the War in Bush's second term, and they quickly crumbled to pressure and personal fear. They've shown a startling lack of willingness to make hard decisions, and it's not a suprise that they lack sand even when they're in power. That's a generalization but is true for many of them. Obama is new and certainly earns his criticisms, but all Democrats in Congress have been far more of a dissapointment for the last 9 years. I was hoping Biden would be Obama's "pit bull" in getting Congress to show some balls, but so far doesn't seem like that's happening. While I disagree with much of your second paragraph, you are preaching to the choir in the first paragraph.
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

24th October 2009, 09:19 PM	#31
Newtons Bit Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,612	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku Actually, it ultimately and practically is one of his main jobs, at least from the perspective of the party that nominates him to represent their platform and members. I'm referring to the party whips. They're the enforcers. They keep the troops in line. Each party has a member in the Senate and the House whose sole responsibility (in addition to being an elected official) is to enforce party line. You've heard of whips before, right?
	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

24th October 2009, 09:34 PM	#32
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit I'm referring to the party whips. They're the enforcers. They keep the troops in line. Each party has a member in the Senate and the House whose sole responsibility (in addition to being an elected official) is to enforce party line. You've heard of whips before, right? Whips are important, though even they are accountable to the leader of the party, which is the president. If there is party disunity, it is ultimately the responsibility of the president to rein in such problems and resolve them.
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

24th October 2009, 09:38 PM	#33
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku Whips are important, though even they are accountable to the leader of the party, which is the president. So much fail.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

25th October 2009, 02:51 AM	#34
Rika Guardian of the Setting Sun Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 3,257	the leader of the party typically (as close as can be found) is the head of the DNC/RNC. ... typically. In practice there is no real leader among the Democrats.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne! rha ki ga gran wael wassa Rrha ki ra chs hymmnos mea Rrha ki ra enne sos yor Was yea ra chs hymmnos, la glasden yehah

25th October 2009, 04:01 AM	#35
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 6,717	Originally Posted by Rika ... typically. In practice there is no real leader among the Democrats. Which is actually one of the reasons that people concerned about a loss of our liberties should vote Democratic. Sure, our gatherings look like a cat round up, but the lack of loyalty to a cultic fidure like the Shrub or Reagan were to the GOP just means that it would be harder for a tyrant to steamroll the rest of the country into submission.