Politicians always promise more than they can achieve. It's just the way of things.
Imagine if Obama's campaign had been about easily-attainable things. His slogan would have just been "Maybe". No-one's interested in voting for the guy promising slightly decreased inflation when the man running against him is promising solid gold houses.
edited 24th Apr '11 4:58:10 AM by DanEile
"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."^ So he was dishonest, in other words.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffNo more so than the average politician. He stated what he hoped to achieve. Any concrete promises that remain unfulfilled are probably more due to practical difficulties than actual maliciousness on his part. I'm not a Barack fanboy, just noting he has to work within the pre-existing system and politicians have been making hyperbolic promises for a long time.
Then again, I'm not American so I don't know any specific political failings he's had. Far be it from me to pass judgment without knowledge.
edited 24th Apr '11 5:25:23 AM by DanEile
"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."He's too nice. He doesn't want to deal with Republicans the same way they deal with him, so he decides to go the "something is better than nothing" route by compromising parts of his bills. That's my own observation anyway.
Most of his big promises were derailed by fanatical and concerted opposition from the Republicans, but he's still managed to get some stuff done.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayWell not a bad leader, perhaps not strong its the words for it. He's trying too hard with the compromise angle to make everyone happy instead of the "Get stuff done" angle so everything we need to get done is taking far longer than they should. I imagine if he actually went all the way with any of his campaign promises the tea party idiots and the republicans would have a conniption and find some way to impeach him regardless of whether or not he did anything wrong.
And I'm pretty sure the war and poverty and debt were there before he got in, and economies aren't exactly easy to fix.
The Blog The ArtIf current circumstances continue, they'll find some way to impeach him sometime in 2014, just like they did to Clinton a year after he was re-elected...
Seriously, the parallels to Clinton's presidency are pretty uncanny, in particular the health-care debate and the far-right-influenced power shift in the first midterm after they were elected.
edited 24th Apr '11 5:51:29 AM by lee4hmz
online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.comAnd threats of government shutdown.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayI like all that he's done so far, just wish he'd done more of it.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Agreed. He's just not a leader whatsoever. A bad leader is more respectable than one who can't or won't lead like Obama.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."More respectable, arguably, but certainly no more use.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff...I thought compromise was a good thing...
Read my stories!He's not the heavy handed leader democrats wanted. He made a lot of promises, nobody expected him to fulfill all of them, maybe even most of them. But we didn't want a compromiser. There is nothing to compromise with republicans, they're insane and corrupt and should be shunted out of the national discourse as much as possible.
Maybe when the republican voters realize they've been duped and start electing some sane people who actually REPRESENT them...
Republicans don't compromise. They make demands. And Obama fills those demands. And then they use that fact against him.
edited 24th Apr '11 7:15:07 AM by CommandoDude
My other signature is a Gundam.Not if you take it to the point of getting nothing done.
edited 24th Apr '11 7:14:24 AM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.Well, we avoided that gov't shutdown, right?
Read my stories!You mean just like what the Democrats did to George Bush in 1992? Welcome to politics. Everything you lament about practice wise has been employed by the Democrats before.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."I don't think you could call W the great compromiser, he was the decider after all :P
And got healthcare passed, people always seem to forget that one.
I hate the Republicans attitude, first they wanted to rush into Libya, then when he did they wanted him to get their approval first. Gah, they're like an entire party of Turian councilors.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?He's a great leader for the wrong time. He's a great caretaker leader, but a pretty bad leader for a moment in history which requires significant change/reform.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveCheck the year. He meant Bush Sr.
Anyway, people seem to forget that all the president can really do when it comes to legislature is push for a bill to be introduced. He can't sign anything that didn't pass Congress and/or the Senate. If you want to blame someone for the lack of forward motion, blame the Democratic supermajority that couldn't get anything passed.
^^ That's rather ironic, I have to say.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI love the lamentation about the "fanatical" opposition from the party completly out of power. So, here's the deal, what happened is the Democrats were in a position of extreme power where they had unbeatable majorities in every house, the dominant strategy they should have used is actually one from European parliment. You bring the party together create 1 platform you can get everyone on board with (or everyone who matters) run on it together and get it through the houses. They didn't actually do that, instead everything went through traditional means so there was much in party bickering.
The republicans had 3 options as the party out of power, they could Acquiesce which is only of value if you can gain something from it, which would require the democrats to want to give something. They could quit congress, or in other words not show up or just basically treat it as a holiday, this really only works for true extremist parties (really guys hate to break it to you but neither party in America is extreme, here I'm talking your revolutionary anti-state parties like anarchists fascists communists etc). The final option was opposition. They took it, the other strategies held no value for them and with opposition they could have a consistent message with out having to suggest policy.
Was Obama a bad leader? well he didn't recognize the position his party was in and take the appropriate strategy. He has also repeatedly pissed off his own party and taken them for granted. I do think his problem isn't "being a nice guy" though, I honestly think he really wants public adoration, so when his party is down he gave them a kick to look like the anti-establishment guy. I'd say he's also ambitious and very concerned with his own power. Sometimes this concern means he spends more time preserving it than using it though.
Obligatory self promotion: http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/I dont really see that.
Don't Stop Me Now...Which part? the ambition I'm mostly taking from a conference we had here on the Obama presidency and I'll be honest I'm not remembering it in that much detail. Mostly though the ambition would explain a guy who ran for president that early into a political career.
Obligatory self promotion: http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/OMG, America is still struggling? Why didn't we elect an all-powerful magic fairy that could wave a wand and cure all that ails us?
For all the complaints about it, Obama isn't a tyrant, nor can he work miracles. I suppose he could have used executive authority to order immediate withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't see how that could have really happened. Too many higher-ups would just say that's insane and block it.
Give me a standard less than perfection, and then we can decide if he's a good leader or not.
It's been two years since Barack Obama came into power, and yet despite his many election promises america is still struggling with war, poverty and social unrest.
I'm beginning to wonder if the public is been shortchanged by their president.
edited 24th Apr '11 4:56:07 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid