What do historians really think of Obama

[TheGreatGatsby]

Every Presidential candidate has during their run, an opportunity to begin the task of screening and then hiring advisers. It appears Obama'd ego would not allow him to hire the smartest and the best. Obama himself has the undying need to be ALWAYS be the smartest person in the room.

Sounds like Bush the Younger, huh?

No, it doesn't. Bush hired vastly intelligent people like Rice and Powell.

Obama hired tax cheats.

I don't know that Rice or Powell are vastly intelligent people. And Powell endorsed Obama. I lost all respect for him after that nonsense.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Read it. Not terribly surprising. I voted for Obama, and I'll be the first up to call him a disappointment. While I don't question his intelligence, even Albert Einstein was smart enough to realize that high IQ doesn't translate to good leadership.

Obama's biggest weakness has always been leadership. He can barely keep the military in line. He couldn't keep his own party in line when he had a filibuster proof majority. He can't lead the international community and he can't seem to even begin to deal with (a very hostile) GOP.

He doesn't deserve reelection. Though I do believe he will get the second term. He has the one advantage George W Bush and Clinton had before him. Neither deserved a second term but were gifted with horribly unelectable opponents. If the GOP had found a modern day Reagan, Obama would have faced a Mondale-esque defeat. As it is, he will probably squeak out a victory.

 

[daveman]

Sounds like Bush the Younger, huh?

No, it doesn't. Bush hired vastly intelligent people like Rice and Powell.

Obama hired tax cheats.

I don't know that Rice or Powell are vastly intelligent people. And Powell endorsed Obama. I lost all respect for him after that nonsense.

He made a mistake there, certainly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sounds like Bush the Younger, huh?

Yer kidding, right?
I didn't hear any of you libs bitching when Bush was spending money on social programs.
Anyway, stay on point. This thread is about what historians think of OBAMA. Not anyone else.

You are just a far reactionary wack, no con whatsoever, and I am no lib.

All fiscally minded Americans were bitching since Reagan sky rocketed government expenses and every presidency since then did the same thing.

Obama, if you wish to critique, has to be taken in the context of what he inherited from Bush.

Pay attention.

No, your only rebuttal here is "It's Bush's fault".
Once again, you will debate the issue of the thread or decline to participate.
Deflection is not acceptable.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Read it. Not terribly surprising. I voted for Obama, and I'll be the first up to call him a disappointment. While I don't question his intelligence, even Albert Einstein was smart enough to realize that high IQ doesn't translate to good leadership.

Obama's biggest weakness has always been leadership. He can barely keep the military in line. He couldn't keep his own party in line when he had a filibuster proof majority. He can't lead the international community and he can't seem to even begin to deal with (a very hostile) GOP.

He doesn't deserve reelection. Though I do believe he will get the second term. He has the one advantage George W Bush and Clinton had before him. Neither deserved a second term but were gifted with horribly unelectable opponents. If the GOP had found a modern day Reagan, Obama would have faced a Mondale-esque defeat. As it is, he will probably squeak out a victory.

Mitt Romney is very presidential. And he's probably more accomplished going into this election than Reagan was going into his election. I will say this though; Reagan did not earn the nickname 'The Great Communicator' for nothing.

And I think Obama's biggest weakness isn't leadership. It's that he wants to force unAmerican principles and already proven failed methods onto the American people. Mitt may or may not be the next Reagan. But we all know we have another Carter with Obama. He's done.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yer kidding, right?
I didn't hear any of you libs bitching when Bush was spending money on social programs.
Anyway, stay on point. This thread is about what historians think of OBAMA. Not anyone else.

You are just a far reactionary wack, no con whatsoever, and I am no lib.

All fiscally minded Americans were bitching since Reagan sky rocketed government expenses and every presidency since then did the same thing.

Obama, if you wish to critique, has to be taken in the context of what he inherited from Bush.

Pay attention.

No, your only rebuttal here is "It's Bush's fault". Once again, you will debate the issue of the thread or decline to participate. Deflection is not acceptable.

You are trying to limit and deflect the debate, fakecon. Context for Obama requires the last 32 years, not since January 2009. Any historian will tell you that. You insist on your interp and you would fail the project.

 

[editec]

When the economy started to melt down, Bush II was already a lame duck.

When the masters of the economy, the treasury, the FED and the CEOs about ten major banks, got together to decide how to prevent the complete collapse of our economic system, OBAMA AND McCAIN (then mere candidates for the office of the President) were IN the ROOM.

McCain had NOTHING to offer.

Obama was well versed in the nature of the problem, and he, (according to the program Front Line, at least) took control of that meeting and helped SET THE AGENDA for what the masters of capital were going to do to keep the BANKING AND FINACE SYSTEM from total meltdown.

And what was done?

The banks that had already been recapitalized by Paulson, were given assurances that the US government would take on the TOXIC ASSETS that were threatening to take down our entire economy.

So who was made whole?

The banks.

And who was NOT made whole?

The PEOPLE of the United States of America who'd be SCREWED by those very banks.

Some of you idiots think this is all about capitalism V communism.

Its time for you guys to read a book.

You know nothing about this national economy, the world economics or how our world actually works.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You are just a far reactionary wack, no con whatsoever, and I am no lib.

All fiscally minded Americans were bitching since Reagan sky rocketed government expenses and every presidency since then did the same thing.

Obama, if you wish to critique, has to be taken in the context of what he inherited from Bush.

Pay attention.

No, your only rebuttal here is "It's Bush's fault". Once again, you will debate the issue of the thread or decline to participate. Deflection is not acceptable.

You are trying to limit and deflect the debate, fakecon. Context for Obama requires the last 32 years, not since January 2009. Any historian will tell you that. You insist on your interp and you would fail the project.

Reagan's somewhat reasonable deficit spending that ended a cold war and started an economic boom is hardly comparable to Obama's extremely gross spending that stifled the economy and is part of a generational theft.

 

[rightwinger]

No, your only rebuttal here is "It's Bush's fault". Once again, you will debate the issue of the thread or decline to participate. Deflection is not acceptable.

You are trying to limit and deflect the debate, fakecon. Context for Obama requires the last 32 years, not since January 2009. Any historian will tell you that. You insist on your interp and you would fail the project.

Reagan's somewhat reasonable deficit spending that ended a cold war and started an economic boom is hardly comparable to Obama's extremely gross spending that stifled the economy and is part of a generational theft.

Reagan tripled the existing debt. His deficit spending was completely unchecked and he did not have Democrats laying off public employees while he was trying to help unemployment

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Mitt Romney is very presidential. And he's probably more accomplished going into this election than Reagan was going into his election. I will say this though; Reagan did not earn the nickname 'The Great Communicator' for nothing.

Dole was pretty darn Presidential and accomplished. Kerry wasn't very Presidential, but compared to GWB's first term he was fairly accomplished.

Mitt's accomplishments are all double edged. Dig into them and for every success you find a reminder he was a fairly liberal politician and a pretty heartless rich kid. I actually like Mitt and will probably vote for him, but if he loses I will certainly understand why.

And I think Obama's biggest weakness isn't leadership. It's that he wants to force unAmerican principles and already proven failed methods onto the American people. Mitt may or may not be the next Reagan. But we all know we have another Carter with Obama. He's done.

We've had worse presidents than Carter see reelection, and far better Presidents than Reagan see defeat. A lot of things outside a President's control determine reelection.

As I've said, I do not think Obama has done anything to deserve reelection. The fact is though you've got a rich Liberal governor with a weird religion from Massachusets running against a sitting President who killed Bin Ladin and got us out of Iraq*. If the economy recovers much at all he wins. Whether he deserves to or not.

*For the record: killing Bin Ladin and getting out of Iraq both represent Obama following up on Bush's policies. Now, try to explain that to the American people.

 

[regent]

So many The American people only know what their political parties and the media tell them. Some of the material is so complicated that it may not even be offered to the citizens for analysis. Besides some of us are only looking for the words socialism, communism, natural birth, and big ears so that we might justify our beliefs.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You are trying to limit and deflect the debate, fakecon. Context for Obama requires the last 32 years, not since January 2009. Any historian will tell you that. You insist on your interp and you would fail the project.

Reagan's somewhat reasonable deficit spending that ended a cold war and started an economic boom is hardly comparable to Obama's extremely gross spending that stifled the economy and is part of a generational theft.

Reagan tripled the existing debt. His deficit spending was completely unchecked and he did not have Democrats laying off public employees while he was trying to help unemployment

You're a partisan hack that does not understand economics. Go ahead and educate yourself some on Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan's somewhat reasonable deficit spending that ended a cold war and started an economic boom is hardly comparable to Obama's extremely gross spending that stifled the economy and is part of a generational theft.

Reagan tripled the existing debt. His deficit spending was completely unchecked and he did not have Democrats laying off public employees while he was trying to help unemployment

You're a partisan hack that does not understand economics. Go ahead and educate yourself some on Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics.

TGG demonstrates failure as someone worthy to discuss and examine these issues. One cannot adequately discuss Obama without knowing and realizing how the post-Carter years set the stage for the 21st century.

 

[AmericanFirst]

well, if fake news says it...

it must be true.

I do not recall it being on the alphabet news, mainstream if you will like msnbc, but it was on Fox news, which is a lot more honest. Let the libtards be angry, it is funny when they are.

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan's somewhat reasonable deficit spending that ended a cold war and started an economic boom is hardly comparable to Obama's extremely gross spending that stifled the economy and is part of a generational theft.

Reagan tripled the existing debt. His deficit spending was completely unchecked and he did not have Democrats laying off public employees while he was trying to help unemployment

You're a partisan hack that does not understand economics. Go ahead and educate yourself some on Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

Peter Ferrara.....didn't have to read any more

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_J._Ferrara

Peter Ferrara, a "senior policy adviser" at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, admitted that he "took money" from Jack Abramoff "to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. 'I do that all the time,' Ferrara [said]. 'I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future'," Eamon Javers reported December 16, 2005, in Business Week. Ferrara said "he doesn't see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write op-ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles."