It's a bit early for Obama to be a "lame duck President," but clearly that's his situation now.

He's failing to lead. His most recent appointees (Hagel and Kerry) seem to bumble along. The current "solution" to the WMD situatiion in Syria seems to have been a Kerry brainfart which has put Vladimir Putin in charge of American foreign policy.

He seems insular, seems to want to go on his own without interfacing with Congress, even members of his own party.

He seems lost. I almost wonder if he's starting to talk to the paintings of past Presidents, seeking their advice much as Nixon is alleged to have done.

I'm starting to wish the choice had been between Hillary Clinton and John McCain/Mitt Romney. I can't see her in the situation Obama is in.

I was proud that we elected a black President, and in no way will I vote for a Republican for President without a fundamental transformation of their philosophy, but I must say I'm depressed.

Anyone else with me?

Tags: John, McCain, Mitt, Obama, President, Romney

Views: 1068

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I totally get that feeling, too. I wish I had something solid to back it up with.

...I'm sure a large part of their obstructionism is to make sure no other uppity n*gg*r runs for President anytime soon.

The Republican Party went racist for a more practical reason. The Bircher-Repubs spent the late 1950s and the early-middle 1960s telling moderates to get out of their party. Many, but not all, did leave and the remaining Repubs knew that if they were to win elections they needed to add to their numbers. Their remedy has the name, the Nixon Southern Strategy. They went south and recruited the Democratic-registered offspring of slave-owning ancestors, whose slaves had been freed by Civil War-era Republicans.

These southern Dems re-registered as Republicans and brought their racism into the Party whose moderates had helped the Dems pass the 1960s civil rights laws.

Reagan invited the evangelicals to join the Party, and the intra-party we are seeing soon began.

I think you grossly overestimate the number of southerners descended from slave owners, and among those who know they are so descended, the number who think slave owning was a meritorious enterprise. The number of Americans who'd want to return to slavery must be microscopically infinitesimal. 

You are about as wrong as you could possibly be on that point. I do think there is latent resentment about how the South was treated after the Civil War, however, but it has little or nothing to do with slavery.

The racism latent in the GOP is just plain old racism, the false belief that black people are inferior. It may go back to antebellum attitudes, but the roots of the belief are no longer in their consciousness. Nobody in the GOP wishes they could own slaves here in the U.S., though owning virtual slaves overseas doesn't seem to bother them much.

I'd say he does have a point, Unseen. "Dixie-crats" (Southern Democrats who had remained with the party because of reasons dating back to reconstruction after the Civil War, for those who don't know) left the party in droves during desegregation and the civil rights movement and joined the Republican party.

But yes, it's old fashioned racism that did that and not the offspring of slave owning ancestors.

The number of Americans who'd want to return to slavery must be microscopically infinitesimal.

The number who want to return as slave owners isn't that small. If they own manufacturing companies they go overseas and hire near-slaves.

Nobody in the GOP wishes they could own slaves here in the U.S., ....

Yeah, nobody in the GOP wants to pay working folk as little as possible.

You clearly never ran in a Republican primary, as a moderate who opposed some of the more rapacious views of fellow Republicans.

I did, and I did it during the years when the far right was telling moderates to get out of the party -- after the racist Southern Dems joined the Party but before Reagan invited the unthinking and/or obedient evangelicals to join the Party.

Unseen, you know not what you say and you know not that you know not.

The number who want to return as slave owners isn't that small. If they own manufacturing companies they go overseas and hire near-slaves.

I think two things. First, you got a bit off topic. How does this relate to Southern racism being based on prior slave ownership? Second, being a slave is like being a virgin. Either you are or you are not. Taking China, for example, people form long lines to get these jobs working under conditions few Americans would tolerate. They want the jobs. They aren't forced to do them by jackbooted soldiers holding whips and guns.

Nobody in the GOP wishes they could own slaves here in the U.S., ....
Yeah, nobody in the GOP wants to pay working folk as little as possible.

Back to being a slave is like being virgin. As long as people will actively apply for and take these jobs, the word "slave" doesn't actually apply.

You're engaging in hyperbole.

Or Muslim.
Sorry to puncture this balloon, but believe me, except for some loony fringes (which also exist in the Democrat party), most Republicans don't care about the colour of his skin but about the content of his character. Most Republicans would vote Thomas Sowell with their eyes closed (he is black) or Jindal, to name another racial minority.

What Democrats can't fathom is that Republicans don't like Obama because he is a full-of-himself, bumbling useless politician. What you're seeing now and troubles you, has troubled the rest of us for a long time.

Sorry to puncture this balloon, but believe me, except for some loony fringes (which also exist in the Democrat party), most Republicans don't care about the colour of his skin but about the content of his character. Most Republicans would vote Thomas Sowell with their eyes closed (he is black) or Jindal, to name another racial minority.

There is no loony "fringe" in the Republican party. Loony is mainstream in the Republican party, on everything from climate change denial, to creationism in public schools, to legitimate rape, to the birthers, to the crackpot Ryan economic plan, to holding America's full faith and credit hostage to cripple Obamacare, to insisting falsely that government is "huge" under Obama, to spending millions to defend DOMA, to ignoring polling data right up to the moment Romney lost. Pick virtually any subject and you'll find GOP party members and conservative “experts” releasing a steady stream of misinformation, denial, and obstruction.

What Democrats can't fathom is that Republicans don't like Obama because he is a full-of-himself, bumbling useless politician. What you're seeing now and troubles you, has troubled the rest of us for a long time.

Name the specific policies that Obama and his administration are responsible for that you are referring to. What problems do you have with them? Be specific. Help me "fathom".

I'm troubled by just three policies of the Obama administration:

1) The suspension of the Fourth Amendment to allow secret NSA surveillance of the public Internet. This began under the Bush administration in the wake of 911, but Obama allowed it to continue, and expand in scope and capability.

2) The economic stimulus, which was meant to end the Bush recession, was not big enough and should have been at least triple the size. This isn't entirely Obama's fault, since he did try to pass a second round of stimulus after the Republicans took control of the House. They blocked the second economic stimulus, then blamed him for not doing enough to stimulate the economy.

3) The failed Wall Street banks should have been taken over (like any other insolvent FDIC-insured banks) and sold when returned to profitability, not bailed out. That happened under Bush, not Obama but I would've liked the executives responsible for the near collapse of global economy to have received several thousand years in prison. It's asking a lot, but Obama and the Democrats did control all of Congress long enough to pass ObamaCare, so I would have liked to see holding Wall Street accountable for causing the Great Recession placed high on the list as well.

The GOP makes him look bumbling by resisting him every step of the way, almost no matter what he proposes. The strategy is to Jimmy Carter him. They can't even give him many of his appointments, which in the past have been largely rubber stamped.

The proof that you're wrong is that instead of throwing roadblocks at all of his decisiions, policies, and appointments, if they they really believed in their hearts they are bad, they could just give him what he wants and play the "We told you so" card later on.

But no, they are afraid of him succeeding.

This is not to ignore Obama's flaws. The main one and the one which hurts him the most, I feel, is that he's insular and ungregarious and has trouble backslapping or glad-handing anyone, much less those he actively dislikes.

When he was elected, I was as elated as anyone, but I wrote my young friends to tell them not to expect all of the promises to come true, and not because he was lying. It would be because it was politically impossible to do or to do very quickly (immigration), or because it was impractical (trying all of the Gitmo detainees in civil, not military, courts). As for his seeming reversal on fighting terrorism, I suspect that once in office, he had facts whispered in his ear that he didn't hear while running for office. 

He's our President, not our King, and he's also the President of all who voted for Romney as well. There are limits both practical and political to what he is able to do.

He just CAN'T do many of the things we expected or hoped he would do.

The proof that you're wrong is that instead of throwing roadblocks at all of his decisiions, policies, and appointments, if they they really believed in their hearts they are bad, they could just give him what he wants and play the "We told you so" card later on.

Is it just barely possible that they are obstructing him because they genuinely believe that the results of "giving him what he wants" would be a catastrophe?  Or just irreversible damage?

I'd have to believe that the Republicans are responsible in order to draw that conclusion, but since they block almost every single thing Obama wants, including things like appointments that normally are a President's prerogative, they have made that scenario unlikely.

They just want to be able to call him a do-nothing President, which is fast becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can only hope the electorate sees through it, along with their racist attempts in several states to keep Hispanics and especially blacks from being able to exercise their right to vote.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 25 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service