Democrats in Disarray

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The inference that there is some measuring stick that "first years" are ranked by is even stupider than trying to say a country with as many continuing issues as we have just had an all time great year.

I didn't say this country had an all-time great year, genius. Neither has anybody else.

Here ya go: certainly you are free to point out why all the below are bad things for the US:

When we Americans elect a president, we’re doing much more than putting someone in the White House to steer the country through a maze of high-profile issues like health care, climate change and the economy.

For instance, President Obama’s first year in office seemed to be consumed only by health care and unemployment. Yet hundreds of other issues were addressed, most of them flying beneath the radar but making significant changes that will affect millions of Americans for years to come.

That’s why I take issue with those who insist they vote only “for the man” during a presidential election and not for the party, as if that’s some kind of virtue. It’s the overall party philosophy that guides an administration and shapes the policies that it puts in place. When we elect a president, we’re making decisions on who serves on the Supreme Court, who presides over the national parks and what environmental policies will be enforced, to name just a few.

With thanks to West Coast writer Dan Benbow, let’s take a look at some of the changes that Obama’s administration has made during his first year in office.

In his first month, the president signed equal-pay-for-equal-work legislation to counteract a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that placed severe restrictions on a woman taking legal action over unequal treatment. A couple of weeks later, he signed into law a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children that the previous administration and Congress had blocked.

The president ordered his new attorney general to take action against people who avoid income taxes by laundering their money in foreign countries. At the same time, he proposed that the government quit the practice of having banks make student loans and then having the U.S. guarantee their repayment. Rather, Obama declared, the government should eliminate the middle man and loan the money itself.

He reversed the Bush administration’s restrictions on the use of stem cells for medical research, clearing the way for federal help for experiments being conducted in places like the University of Wisconsin. He reversed the Bush administration’s crackdown on medical use of marijuana even in states that had legalized the sales. He ordered the Food and Drug Administration to ease access to the “morning after” pill.

Obama began overturning the Bush administration’s “midnight” rules that OK’d mountain mining operations and dumping waste into streams. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the Bush rule that limits the role of science in Endangered Species Act decisions was being rescinded and he placed a million acres of public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon off limits to uranium claims and exploration.

Obama made more aid available to the still-Katrina-ravaged New Orleans and ordered the antitrust division of the Justice Department to scrutinize monopolies in agriculture that may be harming family farm businesses. He unshackled AIDS programs from restrictions that prevented their use for family planning.

The president urged Congress to pass new restrictions on onerous bank overdraft fees and pushed the passage of a credit card consumer act to counter high fees and interest rates. He ordered the Pentagon to allow photographs of soldiers’ coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and he opened the White House visitors’ log to public scrutiny.

All that plus dealing with an obstinate Congress on health care legislation, a massive federal stimulus program to help get the economy moving again, money for the first time ever to build high-speed passenger rail, fostering a new international climate of cooperation, progress with Russia on a new nuclear arms treaty and much more.

Yes, there have been many disappointments during Obama’s first year, but the accomplishments are more than meet the eye.

Dave Zweifel is editor emeritus of the Capital Times. dzweifel@madison.com

[GBBob]

Alright righties...who gets the nod from this fine group

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Alright righties...who gets the nod from this fine group

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Among the other Republican candidates Gingrich named as possible 2012 contenders included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Also included on Gingrich's list are Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may also be a potential candidate, Gingrich said.



i'll take a stab at this, altho i'm not a 'righty'. who knows? lol

remember when bill clinton was thought to not have a chance in hell?! i would have to think gingrich has too many skeletons in his closet. i think sarah palin is an idiot, i would never vote for huckabee as i tend to shy away from ultra-religious folks. mitt romney seemed ok, but i just really don't know much about him. i could say the same for the rest of them. as for jindal, he didn't impress many with his response to the president a year ago, i think he's too new to the scene, that he's not ready for that leap.

i just prefer it when one party is in the executive and the other controls the legislative. we seem to get more accomplished that way.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Among the other Republican candidates Gingrich named as possible 2012 contenders included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Also included on Gingrich's list are Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may also be a potential candidate, Gingrich said.



i'll take a stab at this, altho i'm not a 'righty'. who knows? lol

remember when bill clinton was thought to not have a chance in hell?! i would have to think gingrich has too many skeletons in his closet. i think sarah palin is an idiot, i would never vote for huckabee as i tend to shy away from ultra-religious folks. mitt romney seemed ok, but i just really don't know much about him. i could say the same for the rest of them. as for jindal, he didn't impress many with his response to the president a year ago, i think he's too new to the scene, that he's not ready for that leap.

i just prefer it when one party is in the executive and the other controls the legislative. we seem to get more accomplished that way.

Best three from that list is #1) Newt Gingrich (though I'll probably get crap for that.. I'd vote for him in a second. #2) Mitt Romney #3) Tim Pawlenty

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Best three from that list is #1) Newt Gingrich (though I'll probably get crap for that.. I'd vote for him in a second. #2) Mitt Romney #3) Tim Pawlenty

I think Pawlenty is the sleeper in this group.

[Riot]

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:

http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

how is 'prevented a depression' provable?
and at the time it was passed, it was to keep unemployment from rising above ten percent. whoops as for fixiing health care, that whole bit was prefaced with 'if it passes'-that's not a done deal yet. based on an unprovable thing, and an unfinished one, they're saying he could have a good year-not that he has had one.

Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31098.html

i'll have to re-read this, since the first two times i went through it, i didn't see anything obama actually accomplished...but i did see

'To be sure, Obama’s first year accomplishments are more in the realm of creating good inputs to policy rather than achieving good outputs. Results to date have been relatively few..'

"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ptextfeature

yeah, this starts out well. i'd cringe if i read this in my eval:
One year on, how well has he done?

Not too badly, by our reckoning

Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

Did they mention that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

in other words, it's an immeasurable, unprovable bit of opinion there. just like much of what you posted. but not one thing you put up there disproved what i wrote previously. unless i missed where he veered from bush policy on those things i stated?? see, this is what i wrote:

it seems to me that more than anything, it's just continued on from where bush left off. economy still a mess, still talking about more stimulus packages, unemployment still far too high, and two wars still being waged, deficits still rising, housing still a joke. what exactly is it that has been accomplished? what has changed? what's different?


so, what of that list do i have wrong?????

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think Pawlenty is the sleeper in this group.

Mitch Daniels, Indiana.

[Antitrust32]

First off, you cant take anything that slate article said seriously when they were wrong in just that little snippit you put out.. The Spendulous was supposed to save the country from 8% unemployment, not 10%. And it was a total failure.

Also, one of the 3-4 best presidents since WWII??? And you wanted to spin that into one of the best first years ever? LMAO

So according to that writers, OPINION, Obama is in the top 1/3rd of the 12 presidents we have had since WWII.

Basically, according the Liberals, Obama is the Best Prez Evah cause he isnt G W Bush.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't say this country had an all-time great year, genius. Neither has anybody else.

Here ya go: certainly you are free to point out why all the below are bad things for the US:

This is what you wrote...

"There's alot of media and political sites looking at the "what has really been accomplished in the first year" type of thing now, and the first year of this Presidency is looking to be up there with the very historical best, so far"


It isnt a stretch to say "All time great" and "very historical best" are pretty much the same thing. But you already knew that.