Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In reviewing a president's record many historical facets and events are considered by historians. One of the primary facets of the Obama administration will be the Republican party's cooperation or lack thereof, in short, how much of a factor was the Congresses' attempts to have Obama fail?
The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset
Like other presidents before him, he has avoided the big issues. The issues that he has avoided would've placed him in the history books as one of the greats of all time, if not the greatest. Lets look at what he swept under the rug, avoided, and basically refused to address. (1) Government corruption. (2) Our unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies. (3) The obvious injustices of our judicial system. (4) The astronomical waste of tax dollars. (5) Adequate self-supporting opportunities for all citizens. (6) Adequate, workable, and doable programs to advance the poor and homeless. (7) Tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations.Two very interesting write-ups, diametrically opposed to each other in terms of argumentation:
Why History Will Be Very Kind to Obama -- NYMag
View attachment 35824
Quote:
"Hillary Clinton cast him as an inspirational speechmaker like Martin Luther King Jr., as opposed to a viable contender for president, and John McCain’s campaign scathingly labeled him a “celebrity,” attractive but vacuous.
The lived reality of Obama’s presidency has unfolded as almost the precise opposite of this trope. He has amassed a record of policy accomplishment far deeper than even many of his supporters give him credit for. He has also survived a dismal, and frequently terrifying, 72 months when at every moment, to go by the day-to-day media, a crisis has threatened to rock his presidency to its core. The episodes have been all-consuming: the BP oil spill, swine flu, the Christmas underwear bomber, the IRS scandal, the healthcare.org launch, the border crisis, Benghazi. Depending on how you count, upwards of 19 events have been described as “Obama’s Katrina.”
Obama’s response to these crises—or, you could say, his method of leadership—has been surprisingly consistent. He has a legendarily, almost fanatically placid temperament. He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach. A few months ago, the crisis was the Ebola outbreak, and Obama faced a familiar criticism: He had botched the putatively crucial “performative” aspects of his job. “Six years in,” BusinessWeek reported, “it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor—regardless of the public’s emotional needs.”
By year’s end, the death count of those who contracted Ebola in the United States was zero, and the panic appears as unlikely to define Obama’s presidency as most of the other crises that have come and gone...
...The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset. He has quoted King’s dictum about the arc of the moral universe eventually bending toward justice, and he has said that “at the end of the day, we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.” To his critics, Obama is unable to attend to the theatrical duties of his office because he lacks a bedrock emotional connection with America. It seems more likely that he is simply unwilling to: that he is conducting his presidency on the assumption that his place in historical memory will be defined by a tabulation of his successes minus his failures. And that tomorrow’s historians will be more rational and forgiving than today’s political commentators..."
This is indeed a very interesting write-up.
Much more at the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the other write-up:
Why History Will Eviscerate Obama -- NYMag
View attachment 35825
Quote:
"Obama may wind up the most consequential of the three baby-boom presidents. He expanded certain Bush policies—Detroit bailouts, internet surveillance, drone strikes—and cleaned up after others. We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer. Right now, both look like significant achievements. Yet there is a reason the president’s approval ratings have fallen, in much of the country, to Nixonian lows. Even his best-functioning policies have come at a steep price in damaged institutions, leaving the country less united, less democratic, and less free.
Health-care reform and gay marriage are often spoken of as the core of Obama’s legacy. That is a mistake. Policies are not always legacies, even if they endure, and there is reason to believe these will not. The more people learn about Obamacare, the less they like it—its popularity is still falling, to a record low of 37 percent in November. Thirty states have voted to ban gay marriage, and almost everywhere it survives by judicial diktat.
These are, however, typical Obama achievements. They are triumphs of tactics, not consensus-building. Obamacare involved quid pro quos (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that passed into Capitol Hill lore, accounting and parliamentary tricks to render the bill unfilibusterable, and a pure party-line vote in the Senate. You can call it normal politics, but Medicare did not pass that way. Gay marriage has meant Cultural Revolution–style bullying of dissenters (notoriously, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and the Mozilla founder Brendan Eich). You can call this normal politics, too, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not pass that way.
Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much more at that article as well.
Both articles were published in the New Yorker at the same time. Two opposing viewpoints. Interesting to read.
I will remind that both of these write-ups are opinions, one from a very strong Obama supporter and one from an equally strong Obama detractor. And yet, I can find things in BOTH of these write-ups that I like and do not like.
I also personally think it's a little to early to be speculating about legacy right now. President Obama is going to be in office for another 2 years and some odd days, as of today. There are things that need to be done NOW, regardless of what history may say in, say, 50 years.
But if we do discuss, let's discuss it like adults.
Why not find some stuff in both articles and come up with some reasons for WHY you like or dislike it? Remember, there is more at each link than what I quoted. Perhaps something will really stick out and grab your attention, who knows....
Addressing the short list above would solve many of our socioeconomic ills. But, politics is not about doing what is right, fair, and just, it's about self-service, egos, favoritism, and power. There are between 500 and 600 people in Washington that could change the course of this nation, and the course of history. But, "The Washington Brotherhood" has established itself as a self-serving entity, absent of moral and ethical conscience. So far, Mr. Obama has stayed the course of "status quo", and has done as others before him have done, and that is the practice of "politics as usual".
I am NOT a Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Left Wing, Independent, nor anything other than an American for America, period. I do NOT play the political party game, nor condone political division. A divided citizenry plays right into the hands of those hell-bent on our destruction. As long as we're divided, they win, we lose. The worst enemy of the government, or any government, is a united citizenry. We should get rid of the labels, stop labeling ourselves, and just be Americans. We'll advance a lot further by doing so.Like other presidents before him, he has avoided the big issues. The issues that he has avoided would've placed him in the history books as one of the greats of all time, if not the greatest. Lets look at what he swept under the rug, avoided, and basically refused to address. (1) Government corruption. (2) Our unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies. (3) The obvious injustices of our judicial system. (4) The astronomical waste of tax dollars. (5) Adequate self-supporting opportunities for all citizens. (6) Adequate, workable, and doable programs to advance the poor and homeless. (7) Tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations.Two very interesting write-ups, diametrically opposed to each other in terms of argumentation:
Why History Will Be Very Kind to Obama -- NYMag
View attachment 35824
Quote:
"Hillary Clinton cast him as an inspirational speechmaker like Martin Luther King Jr., as opposed to a viable contender for president, and John McCain’s campaign scathingly labeled him a “celebrity,” attractive but vacuous.
The lived reality of Obama’s presidency has unfolded as almost the precise opposite of this trope. He has amassed a record of policy accomplishment far deeper than even many of his supporters give him credit for. He has also survived a dismal, and frequently terrifying, 72 months when at every moment, to go by the day-to-day media, a crisis has threatened to rock his presidency to its core. The episodes have been all-consuming: the BP oil spill, swine flu, the Christmas underwear bomber, the IRS scandal, the healthcare.org launch, the border crisis, Benghazi. Depending on how you count, upwards of 19 events have been described as “Obama’s Katrina.”
Obama’s response to these crises—or, you could say, his method of leadership—has been surprisingly consistent. He has a legendarily, almost fanatically placid temperament. He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach. A few months ago, the crisis was the Ebola outbreak, and Obama faced a familiar criticism: He had botched the putatively crucial “performative” aspects of his job. “Six years in,” BusinessWeek reported, “it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor—regardless of the public’s emotional needs.”
By year’s end, the death count of those who contracted Ebola in the United States was zero, and the panic appears as unlikely to define Obama’s presidency as most of the other crises that have come and gone...
...The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset. He has quoted King’s dictum about the arc of the moral universe eventually bending toward justice, and he has said that “at the end of the day, we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.” To his critics, Obama is unable to attend to the theatrical duties of his office because he lacks a bedrock emotional connection with America. It seems more likely that he is simply unwilling to: that he is conducting his presidency on the assumption that his place in historical memory will be defined by a tabulation of his successes minus his failures. And that tomorrow’s historians will be more rational and forgiving than today’s political commentators..."
This is indeed a very interesting write-up.
Much more at the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the other write-up:
Why History Will Eviscerate Obama -- NYMag
View attachment 35825
Quote:
"Obama may wind up the most consequential of the three baby-boom presidents. He expanded certain Bush policies—Detroit bailouts, internet surveillance, drone strikes—and cleaned up after others. We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer. Right now, both look like significant achievements. Yet there is a reason the president’s approval ratings have fallen, in much of the country, to Nixonian lows. Even his best-functioning policies have come at a steep price in damaged institutions, leaving the country less united, less democratic, and less free.
Health-care reform and gay marriage are often spoken of as the core of Obama’s legacy. That is a mistake. Policies are not always legacies, even if they endure, and there is reason to believe these will not. The more people learn about Obamacare, the less they like it—its popularity is still falling, to a record low of 37 percent in November. Thirty states have voted to ban gay marriage, and almost everywhere it survives by judicial diktat.
These are, however, typical Obama achievements. They are triumphs of tactics, not consensus-building. Obamacare involved quid pro quos (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that passed into Capitol Hill lore, accounting and parliamentary tricks to render the bill unfilibusterable, and a pure party-line vote in the Senate. You can call it normal politics, but Medicare did not pass that way. Gay marriage has meant Cultural Revolution–style bullying of dissenters (notoriously, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and the Mozilla founder Brendan Eich). You can call this normal politics, too, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not pass that way.
Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much more at that article as well.
Both articles were published in the New Yorker at the same time. Two opposing viewpoints. Interesting to read.
I will remind that both of these write-ups are opinions, one from a very strong Obama supporter and one from an equally strong Obama detractor. And yet, I can find things in BOTH of these write-ups that I like and do not like.
I also personally think it's a little to early to be speculating about legacy right now. President Obama is going to be in office for another 2 years and some odd days, as of today. There are things that need to be done NOW, regardless of what history may say in, say, 50 years.
But if we do discuss, let's discuss it like adults.
Why not find some stuff in both articles and come up with some reasons for WHY you like or dislike it? Remember, there is more at each link than what I quoted. Perhaps something will really stick out and grab your attention, who knows....
Addressing the short list above would solve many of our socioeconomic ills. But, politics is not about doing what is right, fair, and just, it's about self-service, egos, favoritism, and power. There are between 500 and 600 people in Washington that could change the course of this nation, and the course of history. But, "The Washington Brotherhood" has established itself as a self-serving entity, absent of moral and ethical conscience. So far, Mr. Obama has stayed the course of "status quo", and has done as others before him have done, and that is the practice of "politics as usual".
I thought you were a conservative. Am I wrong?
Because I think you're absolutely right.
I am NOT a Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Left Wing, Independent, nor anything other than an American for America, period. I do NOT play the political party game, nor condone political division. A divided citizenry plays right onto the hands of those hell-bent on our destruction. As long as we're divided, they win, we lose. The worst enemy of the government, or any government, is a united citizenry. We should get rid of the labels, stop labeling ourselves, and just be Americans. We'll advance a lot further by doing so.Like other presidents before him, he has avoided the big issues. The issues that he has avoided would've placed him in the history books as one of the greats of all time, if not the greatest. Lets look at what he swept under the rug, avoided, and basically refused to address. (1) Government corruption. (2) Our unfair, unjust, and one-sided foreign trade agreements and policies. (3) The obvious injustices of our judicial system. (4) The astronomical waste of tax dollars. (5) Adequate self-supporting opportunities for all citizens. (6) Adequate, workable, and doable programs to advance the poor and homeless. (7) Tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations.Two very interesting write-ups, diametrically opposed to each other in terms of argumentation:
Why History Will Be Very Kind to Obama -- NYMag
View attachment 35824
Quote:
"Hillary Clinton cast him as an inspirational speechmaker like Martin Luther King Jr., as opposed to a viable contender for president, and John McCain’s campaign scathingly labeled him a “celebrity,” attractive but vacuous.
The lived reality of Obama’s presidency has unfolded as almost the precise opposite of this trope. He has amassed a record of policy accomplishment far deeper than even many of his supporters give him credit for. He has also survived a dismal, and frequently terrifying, 72 months when at every moment, to go by the day-to-day media, a crisis has threatened to rock his presidency to its core. The episodes have been all-consuming: the BP oil spill, swine flu, the Christmas underwear bomber, the IRS scandal, the healthcare.org launch, the border crisis, Benghazi. Depending on how you count, upwards of 19 events have been described as “Obama’s Katrina.”
Obama’s response to these crises—or, you could say, his method of leadership—has been surprisingly consistent. He has a legendarily, almost fanatically placid temperament. He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach. A few months ago, the crisis was the Ebola outbreak, and Obama faced a familiar criticism: He had botched the putatively crucial “performative” aspects of his job. “Six years in,” BusinessWeek reported, “it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor—regardless of the public’s emotional needs.”
By year’s end, the death count of those who contracted Ebola in the United States was zero, and the panic appears as unlikely to define Obama’s presidency as most of the other crises that have come and gone...
...The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset. He has quoted King’s dictum about the arc of the moral universe eventually bending toward justice, and he has said that “at the end of the day, we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.” To his critics, Obama is unable to attend to the theatrical duties of his office because he lacks a bedrock emotional connection with America. It seems more likely that he is simply unwilling to: that he is conducting his presidency on the assumption that his place in historical memory will be defined by a tabulation of his successes minus his failures. And that tomorrow’s historians will be more rational and forgiving than today’s political commentators..."
This is indeed a very interesting write-up.
Much more at the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the other write-up:
Why History Will Eviscerate Obama -- NYMag
View attachment 35825
Quote:
"Obama may wind up the most consequential of the three baby-boom presidents. He expanded certain Bush policies—Detroit bailouts, internet surveillance, drone strikes—and cleaned up after others. We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer. Right now, both look like significant achievements. Yet there is a reason the president’s approval ratings have fallen, in much of the country, to Nixonian lows. Even his best-functioning policies have come at a steep price in damaged institutions, leaving the country less united, less democratic, and less free.
Health-care reform and gay marriage are often spoken of as the core of Obama’s legacy. That is a mistake. Policies are not always legacies, even if they endure, and there is reason to believe these will not. The more people learn about Obamacare, the less they like it—its popularity is still falling, to a record low of 37 percent in November. Thirty states have voted to ban gay marriage, and almost everywhere it survives by judicial diktat.
These are, however, typical Obama achievements. They are triumphs of tactics, not consensus-building. Obamacare involved quid pro quos (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that passed into Capitol Hill lore, accounting and parliamentary tricks to render the bill unfilibusterable, and a pure party-line vote in the Senate. You can call it normal politics, but Medicare did not pass that way. Gay marriage has meant Cultural Revolution–style bullying of dissenters (notoriously, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and the Mozilla founder Brendan Eich). You can call this normal politics, too, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not pass that way.
Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much more at that article as well.
Both articles were published in the New Yorker at the same time. Two opposing viewpoints. Interesting to read.
I will remind that both of these write-ups are opinions, one from a very strong Obama supporter and one from an equally strong Obama detractor. And yet, I can find things in BOTH of these write-ups that I like and do not like.
I also personally think it's a little to early to be speculating about legacy right now. President Obama is going to be in office for another 2 years and some odd days, as of today. There are things that need to be done NOW, regardless of what history may say in, say, 50 years.
But if we do discuss, let's discuss it like adults.
Why not find some stuff in both articles and come up with some reasons for WHY you like or dislike it? Remember, there is more at each link than what I quoted. Perhaps something will really stick out and grab your attention, who knows....
Addressing the short list above would solve many of our socioeconomic ills. But, politics is not about doing what is right, fair, and just, it's about self-service, egos, favoritism, and power. There are between 500 and 600 people in Washington that could change the course of this nation, and the course of history. But, "The Washington Brotherhood" has established itself as a self-serving entity, absent of moral and ethical conscience. So far, Mr. Obama has stayed the course of "status quo", and has done as others before him have done, and that is the practice of "politics as usual".
I thought you were a conservative. Am I wrong?
Because I think you're absolutely right.
