Topic: The Obama Presidency

[kingfish out of water]

Sun-tzu, party of four for Sun-tzu...

Obama attends conservative dinner party

By Steve Thomma
Tue Jan 13, 9:02 pm ET

This could ruin their reputation: President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday evening attending a dinner party at the home of conservative columnist George Will, attended by fellow conservatives William Kristol and David Brooks.

The press pool following the president-elect reported that he left his temporary home at Washington’s Hay-Adams hotel Tuesday evening and arrived a short time later at Will’s home in the Maryland suburbs. A press pool photographer shot a photo of Kristol, an editor of the Weekly Standard, and Brooks, a columnist at the New York Times.

No other scribes noted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcb_washington/20090114/pl_mcb_washington/washington200901obamaattendsconservativedinnerpartyhtml/print

[Jskinner]

Brooks and Will are genuine conservative intellectuals, and I can see Obama having a stimulating discussion with them, however, Kristol, the man behind Palin, is not of the same caliber.

[kingfish out of water]

Very true.

[AJ93]

I figure an ongoing documentation of the Obama presidency should have a smattering of commentary from "the opposition", however self serving it might be.

While I can't stand the individual (Rove), he brings up at least one good point regarding the balancing of "spending vs. stimulus". I know that Obama has sent a clear message that he is looking to spend on those things that generate a return in either GDP, jobs, or some other measurable objective. My only concern with (any) single party majority is that the administration doesn't ultimately lose sight of that goal, or have it get away from them.

That said, I have a lot of faith in the potential of this administration, and I'm genuinely optimistic about what they can do.

Welcome to the White House, Mr. Obama
The honeymoon doesn't last long.

By KARL ROVE

On Tuesday, America can take pride in a special transfer of power as Barack Obama becomes the first African-American to be sworn in as president.

Shortly after the ceremony, the new president's aides will slip away to inspect the offices they now inhabit. They've put much of their lives on hold to take jobs that will last, for most, two or three years. Hours will be long, pressure unrelenting, decisions momentous, and families often neglected. Every American should respect their sacrifices.

...

...continued... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197764931283611.html#printMode

[Boreas]

...
And then there's Medicaid. Mr. Obama wants to give about $100 billion to help states expand the program. This will add $100 billion or more a year to the baseline of an entitlement everyone admits is out of control.

Many Obama proposals are spending marketed as stimulus. Much of his "middle-class tax cut" goes to people who have no federal income tax liability. It's really a $500 per worker annual tax credit. Is $20 a week ($40 for couples) in welfare stimulative?...

Geez, what an insensitive S.O.B.  He should be getting meals from the government from inside a peniteniary after outing Valerie Plame.

[kingfish out of water]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/daily-show-takes-on-the-s_n_123908.html

[Jskinner]

Re: that dinner with David Brooks:David wrote about it here

"It’s true, I did break bread with Obama. It was amazing. He was carried into the house by cherubs, Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey spread rose pedals on the carpet where he was about to walk and he very considerately asked me what vintage of wine I wanted my water turned into.

It’s also a sign that Obama can talk to and understand Americans at all social levels. For example, that night with us, he had an elegant dinner filled with sophisticated ideas and complex policy conversation with a bunch of right-leaning commentators. Then the next day, he had a meeting with some liberal commentators where, I presume, he was just as fluid while using much simpler sentences, shorter words and serving Froot Loops and Hostess Twinkies. There are pundits at all levels of cognitive distinction, and Obama has to learn to address all of them."

[kingfish out of water]

^Charles Krauthammer pulled a similar mocking riff on Fox, minus the reasoned follow-up. Krauthammer and Brooks are of two distinctly different ilks. Brooks occasionally removes his head from his ass while in Krauthammer's case it has permanently fused with his duodenum.

[MyTwoSense]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUnTTwrxmc&eurl=http://www.hbo.com/weareone/index_message_obama.html

[David]

90 percent of jobs will be created in the private sector. The stimulus plan isn't really about expansion of government. Rove is just being Rove.

[kingfish out of water]

Thanks to the handiwork of Rove's clients, aren't most American bankers now government employees?

[Boreas]

Disgraced former president Bush looked like a petulant child when CNN cut to his image during President Obama's inaugural speech today.  To his credit, during his last weeks he was trying to burnish his image and did not do anything heinously dickish.  There are still 22 more chances for him not to go down in history as the worst president of this century.

[TBideon]

People were cheering at work today - pretty euthoric mood overall.  I guess we'll see exactly how much confidence and optimism really impacts an economy, at least in the short term

[rockandroller]

Disgraced former president Bush looked like a petulant child when CNN cut to his image during President Obama's inaugural speech today.  To his credit, during his last weeks he was trying to burnish his image and did not do anything heinously dickish.  There are still 22 more chances for him not to go down in history as the worst president of this century.

OMG we thought the same thing in the room where I was watching.  As my father would have said, he looked like someone just handed him a sh*t sandwich.

[Johio]

Re: that dinner with David Brooks:David wrote about it here

"It’s true, I did break bread with Obama. It was amazing. He was carried into the house by cherubs, Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey spread rose pedals on the carpet where he was about to walk and he very considerately asked me what vintage of wine I wanted my water turned into.

It’s also a sign that Obama can talk to and understand Americans at all social levels. For example, that night with us, he had an elegant dinner filled with sophisticated ideas and complex policy conversation with a bunch of right-leaning commentators. Then the next day, he had a meeting with some liberal commentators where, I presume, he was just as fluid while using much simpler sentences, shorter words and serving Froot Loops and Hostess Twinkies. There are pundits at all levels of cognitive distinction, and Obama has to learn to address all of them."

I know I'm in the minority here but I could not agree more with the sarcasm spoke here in regards to Obama. Yes, he's the new president and yes he's part African-American but messiah-like treatment and comparisions to Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are completely ridiculous. The only thing they have in common is that they all entered office in very difficult times, however it is what they did after they got there that is of greater importance. It is those accomplishements that seperate them from Presidents like Andrew Johnson, U.S. Grant, and LBJ, who entered office in difficult times with much different results. I'm not saying peolple can't be excited to a degree but lets not count the chickens before they hatch. America's failings and successes are bigger than one man alone.

[KStay2]

Re: that dinner with David Brooks:David wrote about it here

"It’s true, I did break bread with Obama. It was amazing. He was carried into the house by cherubs, Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey spread rose pedals on the carpet where he was about to walk and he very considerately asked me what vintage of wine I wanted my water turned into.

It’s also a sign that Obama can talk to and understand Americans at all social levels. For example, that night with us, he had an elegant dinner filled with sophisticated ideas and complex policy conversation with a bunch of right-leaning commentators. Then the next day, he had a meeting with some liberal commentators where, I presume, he was just as fluid while using much simpler sentences, shorter words and serving Froot Loops and Hostess Twinkies. There are pundits at all levels of cognitive distinction, and Obama has to learn to address all of them."

I know I'm in the minority here but I could not agree with the sarcasm spoke here in regards to Obama. Yes, he's the new president and yes he's part African-American but messiah-like treatment and comparisions to Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are completely ridiculous. The only thing they have in common is that they all entered office in very difficult times, however it is what they did after they got there that is of greater importance. It is those accomplishements that seperate them from Presidents like Andrew Johnson, U.S. Grant, and LBJ, who entered office in difficult times with much different results. I'm not saying peolple can't be excited to a degree but lets not count the chickens before they hatch. America's failings and successes are bigger than one man alone.

Well put.

[TBideon]

"America's failings and successes are bigger than one man alone."

I think the last 8 years under that loser would disprove that point.

[rockandroller]

"I know I'm in the minority here but I could not agree with the sarcasm spoke here in regards to Obama."

I'm sure you meant you could not agree MORE, but this was a funny mistake anyway IMO.  It took me a minute to get what you were saying because you started out saying you couldn't agree with it, but apparently that's not what you meant.

[Johio]

"I know I'm in the minority here but I could not agree with the sarcasm spoke here in regards to Obama."

I'm sure you meant you could not agree MORE, but this was a funny mistake anyway IMO.  It took me a minute to get what you were saying because you started out saying you couldn't agree with it, but apparently that's not what you meant.

Yes...that is what I meant. Certainly does change the tone of it doesn't it?

[rockandroller]

I'm a Democrat and I support the new President but he wasn't my candidate and I too think it's been a little overly hyped.  I think the hype is directly tied to people's fears and malaise about the economy and the war and the general nasty state of affairs, they're pinning an awful lot on this new administration and I was glad to hear that he's basically telling people we're all going to have to work hard and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, nobody is coming in on a white charger to save everyone.  That's a message I can get behind, for sure. 

[Johio]

"America's failings and successes are bigger than one man alone."

I think the last 8 years under that loser would disprove that point.

I would wholeheartedly disagree.

Bush was villified by the left and a large portion of the media since the day he became President-elect back in 2000 due to the whole Florida fiasco. Bush had no control over Florida's mis-management nor the courts decision. From day one the guy was not given a fair chance.

Furthermore, his first 4 years in office we're remarkably good. The economy recovered from the recession that began under the final term of Clinton and the country was able to keep it together after one of its truly greatest tragedies. The invasions of Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq were intially successes. All of this lead to him soundly defeating Kerry in 2004.

Like most Presidents his second term failed to live up to the success of his first although again not entirely his fault. Mother nature was to blame for Katrina and the governor of Louisiana and FEMA were to blame for the poor response. The media with help from Donal Rumsfeld turned the Iraq War into another Vietnam. Finally, the economy dwindled as 30 years of a combination of poor policy on both sides of the aisle, corporate greed, and the inevitable correction from the booming 90's finally came back to bite us.

Of course, he has his share of faults and history will indeed remember them. However, to blame the current situation we are in on one, single man is not logical. He could not be CEO of every company. He could not lead the daily operations of every department run by the government. It was the people Bush put around himself who largely failed. Like many Presidents, Bush's failing was in not recognizing this, probably blinded by loyalty to some degree as many are, and correcting it. It is also important to note that Capitol Hill has retained a Democratic majority for two years. At least some responsibility falls upon their shoulders as well.

[rockandroller]

Besides, if we're going to blame one man for misdeeds in that adminstration, it would be Cheney.  Bush was nothing but a figurehead.

[Robert Pence]

Re: that dinner with David Brooks:David wrote about it here

... Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey spread rose pedals ...

petals

A bicycle has pedals.
A salesman peddles.
A flower has petals.

The on-line article had the right word.

... Brooks occasionally removes his head from his ass while in Krauthammer's case it has permanently fused with his duodenum.

Again the kingfish crafts an exquisite phrase!

[Johio]

Besides, if we're going to blame one man for misdeeds in that adminstration, it would be Cheney.  Bush was nothing but a figurehead.

If I was of the belief that one person is to blame...I would definitely put it on Cheney.

[rockandroller]

But alas, we digress off topic, which is about Obama as President.

[327]

I agree that it's insane to blame one man for everything that's happened. 

But as for the performance of executive branch agencies, the buck absolutely stops at the president.  How can Iraq have gone well at the beginning, when the very act of beginning it was an oopsie?  Bush cannot blame his subordinates for blowing that call.  That's not an option "deciders" get. 

On Katrina, I don't understand shifting blame to a mayor when every resource the mayor controls is underwater.  That situation called out for military intervention, and nothing short of it, several hours before landfall.

Post-Clinton economic recovery?  When was that, exactly?  I must have been in the bathroom, because I don't remember it happening.

[Johio]

^Since I'm an American before I'm a Republican, I do sincerely wish him well. Though our core principles aren't the same, I do think he has some interesting ideas, in some instances it is just the logistics of accomplishing them I disagree with.

[mrnyc]

eh, sorry j3, but bush doesn't get off that easy. let's put it this way, the events of his time were on his watch and the buck stopped with him. so it's his legacy.

face it, during his reign the elections were the most controversial of all time, we were attacked, an event which was quite personal for me, then he took that pretext to get us into some bizzare revenge for his daddy/oil war/proxy war with china, whatever you want to call it, and finally just before he left he allowed much of my retirement money to be stolen. any of that prosperity you mentioned? evaporated.

so i say -- don't let the screen door hit you in the azz on the wait out dubya. worst president ever -- you're dismissed.

[Boreas]

Re: that dinner with David Brooks: "It’s true, I did break bread with Obama. It was amazing. He was carried into the house by cherubs, Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey spread rose pedals on the carpet where he was about to walk and he very considerately asked me what vintage of wine I wanted my water turned into.

... Yes, he's the new president and yes he's part African-American but messiah-like treatment and comparisions to Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are completely ridiculous. The only thing they have in common is that they all entered office in very difficult times, however it is what they did after they got there that is of greater importance. It is those accomplishments that separate them from Presidents like Andrew Johnson, U.S. Grant, and LBJ, who entered office in difficult times with much different results. I'm not saying people can't be excited to a degree but lets not count the chickens before they hatch. America's failings and successes are bigger than one man alone.

President Obama is deserving of the excessive adulation that he has been receiving.  (And if you have any doubt about his mandate, go look at the crowds at the inauguration and parade.  GOPs would be foolish to try to win by demeaning him).

But I digress.  President Obama is deserving of adulation for the incredibly tasteful manner in which he campaigned for president.  He really does come across as a nice man.

Compare that to his predecessor, bush, who could not win the most votes on account of a campaign that consisted of talking down the economy and more of the tired anti-Clinton hatred.

Predecessor bush was especially heinous in the 2004 campaign.  His  horrid surrogates Cheney, Giuliani, and philandering, thieving Bernard Kerik campaigned for him while telling the public that voting for Kerry would result in them getting killed by fanatical Moslems.  All that after their inept government let 19 hijackers destroy the WTC and the Pentagon.

The Change We Need--Do you get it now?

[Jimmy_James]

face it, during his reign the elections were the most controversial of all time

False.  Check out the elections of John Quincy Adams and Rutherford B. Hayes for example.  Those make the arguments over the 2000 election look like a friendly chat.  I disagree with most of your other points, but I don't want to start a flame war over this.  Just wanted to point out some of our early controversial elections.  Most people don't know much about them, but they're really fascinating.

I agree with j3shafer.  People should be judged by their ACTIONS, and since Obama hasn't spent even one day in office yet, that it's ridiculous to prejudge him positively or negatively.  Can't we at least give the guy as few weeks in office before deciding if he's the best/worst thing ever?

[TBideon]

MRNYC, you're being too kind a man who has pretty much turned the Republican party into a swear word, even if he were just a puppet by his administration.  What's even worse about Bush is that he's probably a decent guy - in fact, he's probably a "nicer" and more honorable person than Clinton - but unfortunately has blindly and constantly made horrific decisions that have caused us NOTHING but problems and stresses the last 7+ years.

But onto Obama.  Though I'm a Republican (despite being pro choice, pro gay rights, and pro government regulation on big business), I voted for him because he proposed certain tax cuts, appeared to be a genuinely good man and inspirational leader, and because Palin was an unconscionable choice by McCain to appeal to right wing wackos and disfranchised Hillary voters.  While Bush may have been ignorant, Palin was malevolent and voting for Obama became a no brainer.

   

[Johio]

Re: that dinner with David Brooks: "It’s true, I did break bread with Obama. It was amazing. He was carried into the house by cherubs, Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey spread rose pedals on the carpet where he was about to walk and he very considerately asked me what vintage of wine I wanted my water turned into.

... Yes, he's the new president and yes he's part African-American but messiah-like treatment and comparisions to Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are completely ridiculous. The only thing they have in common is that they all entered office in very difficult times, however it is what they did after they got there that is of greater importance. It is those accomplishments that separate them from Presidents like Andrew Johnson, U.S. Grant, and LBJ, who entered office in difficult times with much different results. I'm not saying people can't be excited to a degree but lets not count the chickens before they hatch. America's failings and successes are bigger than one man alone.

President Obama is deserving of the excessive adulation that he has been receiving.  (And if you have any doubt about his mandate, go look at the crowds at the inauguration and parade.  GOPs would be foolish to try to win by demeaning him).

But I digress.  President Obama is deserving of adulation for the incredibly tasteful manner in which he campaigned for president.  He really does come across as a nice man.

Compare that to his predecessor, bush, who could not win the most votes on account of a campaign that consisted of talking down the economy and more of the tired anti-Clinton hatred.

Predecessor bush was especially heinous in the 2004 campaign.  His  horrid surrogates Cheney, Giuliani, and philandering, thieving Bernard Kerik campaigned for him while telling the public that voting for Kerry would result in them getting killed by fanatical Moslems.  All that after their inept government let 19 hijackers destroy the WTC and the Pentagon.

The Change We Need--Do you get it now?

No, I don't get it.

Obama does seem like he is a nice guy and yes he deserves his share of congratulations. Winning the presidency is no easy feat for any person. However, their is a difference between respect and just falling head over heels for a guy who has done nothing of any real substance on a national or international level.

As Jimmy_James said Bush's 2000 election is not even close to this country's most controversial. It is merely the most recent one. To say the Democrats don't run as dirty of campaigns as the Republicans is just being blind. They are politicians...they are ALL dirty.

9/11 was a direct result of prior administrations failing to adequately deal with and respond to the international terror threat which has developed over the past 50 years. Carter's foreign policy was miserable, Reagan gave Iraq weapons to use against Iran, GHW Bush failed to get the job done the first time in Iraq, Clinton let numerous terror attacks occur under his watch.

Does the country need to change? Yes.

Is Obama the change we need? Talk to me in 4 years.

[327]

^^ j3, I agree with everything you just said.  None if it helps W though, not even the part about the prior foreign policies.  He still reacted to 9/11 the way he did.  Obama in his speech today put a lot of distance between himself and those reactions.

[Boreas]

There was a recurring theme in the bush government that they never took responsibility and blamed the f-ups on someone else.

"Yeah, the memo said Bin Laden determined to attack...but it's still Clinton's fault".

[Johio]

nevermind