Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:26:23

i don't even

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:33:14

pacino wrote:i don't think he's that great of a president, to be honest. i think he's done some obvious things, some long-term decent things, but is very defensive and afraid of confrontation or holding to long-held convictions for the sake of some false civility/bipartisanship that the other side will never allow. he's nowhere near the worst president of my lifetime, though.

Such as...
1. Obamacare
2. Repealed don't ask don't tell
3. Coming up with the sequester
4. Sticking to the troop drawdown schedule in Afghanistan and Iraq
5. Killed Osama
6. Drone strikes killing other terrorists

Am I missing any obvious things? Personally, I think he gets credit for the first 3 things, but I'm not sure about whether I can truly credit him for the other "successes."

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:42:47

pacino wrote:i don't even

[youtube]Ted cruz speaking on self defense and stand your ground principles[/youtube]

I watched the whole thing expecting to see something crazy. Instead, I agree with everything he said. What do you not understand or agree with?

by **Roger Dorn** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:44:49

I find your #6 to be one of the most disappointing aspects of his presidency, as I expected him to curtail the drone war and instead we have seen the opposite.

I was also pretty disappointed early on with how he was dealing with the "drug war" as his justice department was conducting more raids at a higher rate on state sanctioned medicinal marijuana clinics than even Bush was. I do give Holder and Obama some credit for apparently at this point letting Colorado and Washington proceed with the implementation of their ballot initiatives.

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:48:13

Roger Dorn wrote:I find your #6 to be one of the most disappointing aspects of his presidency, as I expected him to curtail the drone war and instead we have seen the opposite.

I was also pretty disappointed early on with how he was dealing with the "drug war" as his justice department was conducting more raids at a higher rate on state sanctioned medicinal marijuana clinics than even Bush was. I do give Holder and Obama some credit for apparently at this point letting Colorado and Washington proceed with the implementation of their ballot initiatives.

You're right, easing up on the drug war is a positive.

I should have added Obama's other neo-con successes like "keeping Guantanamo open" and "continuing to spy on our citizens and allies in the face of political pressure," as well as other financial successes such as re-upping Bernanke and successfully subverting decades of established bankruptcy law.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:55:25

jerseyhoya wrote:I appreciate that. The common defense in this thread from liberals has been "BUT BUSH", and it's good to mix up which previous Republican the left bashed for doing (or not knowing) XYZ so of course it's OK that Obama is now doing (or not knowing) XYZ.

The thing is, I don't really blame Bush (or Reagan) for playing coy about what they did or did not know, particularly with respect to national security leaks that might be compromising. Every President knows all kinds of shit that would be embarrassing if it got out; that's why national security is supposed to be... Secure. Certainly, I am less sympathetic to the President on questions of what he knew and when he knew it with respect to the shortcomings of the rollout of the ACA (as his "I didn't know" posturing on those issues is strictly political), but even this stuff is just political gamesmanship. Whether the law is 100% perfect in its initial days has little bearing on whether it is, on balance, a good law. I believe the law itself (and its intended consequences, once realized) is the best he could have done under the circumstances, which is all any one politician can hope to do.

The Obamacare rollout reminds me of my cell phone/tablet producer... BlackBerry. Anything they roll out is late, doesn't work right at first, and is generally a public relations disaster. Then, a year later, when the dust settles and they get the bugs fixed, it turns out they have a pretty nice product. Fortunately for Obamacare/the federal government, unlike for BlackBerry, going out of business before people see it really working properly isn't a legitimate threat.

My criticisms of prior Republican administrations would be more about the choices they made in terms of priorities and actions, both domestically and abroad.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:58:18

I think Obama deserves some credit for preventing complete and total financial collapse in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown. It's a counterfactual, so it's hard to back up the claim "it could have been much worse" empirically, but I believe we really were on the precipice. Also, of course, much of what he did was simply to expand policies Bush put in place. Finally, there were mistakes, but I chalk that up to the fact that in a crisis, you simply can't plan for all contingencies.

I'm disappointed that a few people didn't go to jail--again, the contrast with Bush is instructive--his administration did not seem reluctant to jail his Enron buddies, and it's not even entirely clear that Enron really committed a crime. A lot of Enron employees who were burned really should have known better.

by **JFLNYC** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 09:59:22

Werthless, I'm sure you realize that the first law signed by W was the Bankruptcy Law overhaul. His first priority was to make it much more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy, thereby "subverting" decades of established law. By the way, one of his biggest campaign contributors was MBNA, exceeded only by ENRON, before it's demise. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:01:58

Roger Dorn wrote:I find your #6 to be one of the most disappointing aspects of his presidency, as I expected him to curtail the drone war and instead we have seen the opposite.

I was also pretty disappointed early on with how he was dealing with the "drug war" as his justice department was conducting more raids at a higher rate on state sanctioned medicinal marijuana clinics than even Bush was. I do give Holder and Obama some credit for apparently at this point letting Colorado and Washington proceed with the implementation of their ballot initiatives.

i'm not going to get into this idea of going back and forth on what is and isnt an accomplishment because i find that to be tedious and useless, but i will just say they completely reworked how drug sentencing occurs and fairness in drug sentencing has been on the forefront of the DOJ.

by **td11** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:21:04

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... call-obama

Some Republicans indicated to The Hill they will not assist constituents in navigating the law and obtaining benefits. Others said they would tell people to call the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

"Given that we come from Kansas, it's much easier to say, 'Call your former governor,'" said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R), referring to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

"You say, 'She's the one. She's responsible. She was your governor, elected twice, and now you reelected the president, but he picked her.'" Huelskamp said.

"We know how to forward a phone call," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

"I have two dedicated staff who deal with nothing, but ObamaCare and immigration problems," he added. "I'm sure there will be an uptick in that, but all we can do is pass them back to the Obama administration. The ball's in their court. They're responsible for it."

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:38:42

well, you could try and help your constituents, or you could not. easy choice, i guess.

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:41:22

None of this is to excuse Obama's undeniable screw-ups of policy (spying) and implementation (ACA). But I think it's undeniable that the presidency has been progressively wrong-sized on a bipartisan basis for 80 years now, to the point where I'm pretty sure the executive branch is unmanageable and abuses and incompetence inevitable. The reasons are fairly clear and mostly understandable: need to respond to various crises, increasing fecklessness of Congress, etc. But something clearly is awry. (I think on some level Obama himself gets this and would like to change it... and then he looks at Congress and thinks, "Nah. Not them.")

In this context, I think all a president realistically can do is set a tone and set priorities. Obama's administration has been relatively scandal-free and much less partisan than Bush--no Iraq Provisional Government staffers chosen on the basis of their abortion views, no president of the Arabian Horse Association picked to lead FEMA, no attempted purging of politically unreliable US attorneys.

On the other hand, he hasn't shown a focus on execution that you'd want to see--maybe that's the difference between an executive background and a legislative background--and this is really important if your hoped-for legacy is to rehabilitate the idea of activist government that can make a positive difference in citizens' lives. Maybe it bores him, and I think he's the kind of pretentious person who'd think that way even if he's too smart ever to admit it.

I also think the guy's BS detector is not what it should be. He gave way too much deference to the Rubin crowd who did so much to screw the economy in the first place, and to the Little Cheneys all through the massive national security apparatus.

These are big flaws that likely will mar his historical reputation. But the hallmark of his political career (other than 2008, oddly) has been incredible good luck in his opponents, and that continues. He'll always look good compared to those who blindly hate him.

by **pacino** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:52:23

i think that's a very astute post. many of the problems that have happened are due to an ineffectual Congress who only chooses to assert itself in campaign mode and a generally overreaching executive (ironically expanded many times under republicans who hate big government as well as democrats). the latter can work with a real Congress that is serious, but if you have a bunch of loons who believe facts are lies from the pit of hell and political animals in there who can be bought and sold for a campaign donation, you're going to have a completely crappy political system.

by **Roger Dorn** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:55:26

pacino wrote:
Roger Dorn wrote:I find your #6 to be one of the most disappointing aspects of his presidency, as I expected him to curtail the drone war and instead we have seen the opposite.

I was also pretty disappointed early on with how he was dealing with the "drug war" as his justice department was conducting more raids at a higher rate on state sanctioned medicinal marijuana clinics than even Bush was. I do give Holder and Obama some credit for apparently at this point letting Colorado and Washington proceed with the implementation of their ballot initiatives.

i'm not going to get into this idea of going back and forth on what is and isnt an accomplishment because i find that to be tedious and useless, but i will just say they completely reworked how drug sentencing occurs and fairness in drug sentencing has been on the forefront of the DOJ.

I forgot to add the rewriting and reexamining of the minimum drug sentencing laws as a positive this Administration deserves recognition for. Believe it or not, Rand Paul was actively working with the Administration on this.

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/kateandr ... g-n1662436

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:03:53

In terms of how to right-size government... I keep coming back to this idea of radical decentralization. It makes more and more sense as the country geographically self-sorts by ideology: keep a national currency, defense, and the constitutional framework, and otherwise devolve as much as possible to the state and local levels. What's lost in efficiencies of scale--a real concern--IMO would be more than gained in citizen buy-in.

I think devolutionary federalism is a concept mostly associated with the right, but otherwise I don't get why more liberals aren't on board. We have bigger government in NYC because most of us think we need it to regulate complicated systems and uncountable commercial interactions, etc. Government is and should be smaller in those low-density red states with more senators than congressional reps. Why we should tell them what to do or vice-versa is beyond me.

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:06:40

JFLNYC wrote:Werthless, I'm sure you realize that the first law signed by W was the Bankruptcy Law overhaul. His first priority was to make it much more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy, thereby "subverting" decades of established law. By the way, one of his biggest campaign contributors was MBNA, exceeded only by ENRON, before it's demise. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Signing a law passed by Congress is much different from what Obama did. I'm sure you realize that.

by **Werthless** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:12:39

dajafi wrote:None of this is to excuse Obama's undeniable screw-ups of policy (spying) and implementation (ACA). But I think it's undeniable that the presidency has been progressively wrong-sized on a bipartisan basis for 80 years now, to the point where I'm pretty sure the executive branch is unmanageable and abuses and incompetence inevitable. The reasons are fairly clear and mostly understandable: need to respond to various crises, increasing fecklessness of Congress, etc. But something clearly is awry. (I think on some level Obama himself gets this and would like to change it... and then he looks at Congress and thinks, "Nah. Not them.")

In this context, I think all a president realistically can do is set a tone and set priorities. Obama's administration has been relatively scandal-free and much less partisan than Bush--no Iraq Provisional Government staffers chosen on the basis of their abortion views, no president of the Arabian Horse Association picked to lead FEMA, no attempted purging of politically unreliable US attorneys.

On the other hand, he hasn't shown a focus on execution that you'd want to see--maybe that's the difference between an executive background and a legislative background--and this is really important if your hoped-for legacy is to rehabilitate the idea of activist government that can make a positive difference in citizens' lives. Maybe it bores him, and I think he's the kind of pretentious person who'd think that way even if he's too smart ever to admit it.

I also think the guy's BS detector is not what it should be. He gave way too much deference to the Rubin crowd who did so much to screw the economy in the first place, and to the Little Cheneys all through the massive national security apparatus.

These are big flaws that likely will mar his historical reputation. But the hallmark of his political career (other than 2008, oddly) has been incredible good luck in his opponents, and that continues. He'll always look good compared to those who blindly hate him.

I'd love to respond to this later. So much I agree with, but I need to think a about this a little more.

What did you mean by the bolded?

Also,

dajafi wrote:In terms of how to right-size government... I keep coming back to this idea of radical decentralization. It makes more and more sense as the country geographically self-sorts by ideology: keep a national currency, defense, and the constitutional framework, and otherwise devolve as much as possible to the state and local levels. What's lost in efficiencies of scale--a real concern--IMO would be more than gained in citizen buy-in.

Oh, God, another libertarian nut on the board.

First rule of government is that you do not talk about shrinking government.

by **dajafi** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:26:05

(responding to Werthless here)
I guess you mean libertarian by process, which I can't totally disagree with as a self-assessment. I do think it's fair to assert that within certain constraints (and there's the rub!), communities should have greater discretion to have as much or as little government as they prefer. As communities increasingly self-select, the small-d democratic calculus becomes more favorable to this idea, I think.

What I meant by the bolded is that the balance between the branches of federal government (a separate question than the federalism) has radically changed since FDR. I think this is pretty much undeniable; the question is what one thinks of it. I'm not always sure myself, but IMO it's clear that the Founders put congress first for a reason. Yet now most of the focus and most of the power now resides in the executive, and I don't think it's manageable... especially if we're electing presidents more on simpatico/ideology than managerial chops. (This is a big part of why a bunch of us technocratic social liberals were enthralled with Bloomberg.)

It's possible that much of my thinking about politics these days is colored by what I see happening, and what I think is about to happen, here in New York. We're about to go from a manager to a half-hack, half-ideologue, and it scares the shit out of me.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:34:26

JFLNYC wrote:Werthless, I'm sure you realize that the first law signed by W was the Bankruptcy Law overhaul. His first priority was to make it much more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy, thereby "subverting" decades of established law. By the way, one of his biggest campaign contributors was MBNA, exceeded only by ENRON, before it's demise. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

What are you talking about? BAPCPA was a 2005 bill. Clinton pocket vetoed the bill in 2000, and nothing else made it to the President's desk in the meantime.

by **JFLNYC** » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:44:44

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:Werthless, I'm sure you realize that the first law signed by W was the Bankruptcy Law overhaul. His first priority was to make it much more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy, thereby "subverting" decades of established law. By the way, one of his biggest campaign contributors was MBNA, exceeded only by ENRON, before it's demise. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

What are you talking about? BAPCPA was a 2005 bill. Clinton pocket vetoed the bill in 2000, and nothing else made it to the President's desk in the meantime.

I should have said the first bill after he was re-elected.

Do you really think when he signed it makes any difference at all as to the substance of the law and his backing of it?

Archived

Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread

Re: Last I Checked, It's still 2013 - Politics Thread