The Awesome Obama Thread II

I can understand the liberal outrage that Obama didn't do everything that they wanted. However, we live in the real world. He has to work within the guidelines of the constitution, which includes letting the legislature legislate.I'm a bit more pragmatic. A small step in the right direction (the healthcare bill) is better than overreaching for the whole shebang, only to end up with nothing to show for it (at best) or a backlash that takes us further from the goal (at worst).The fact is, we live in a country with differing views, and those differing views have just as much clout as ours do, meaning the ultimate solution to any problem is going to come from somewhere between our opposing views.I think Obama has done a very good job, considering the hand he was dealt at the time he was elected. I'm also of the opinion that the second term of a presidency is usually a bit more effective or at least outspoken because they no longer have the specter of reelection hanging over every decision, combined with the fact that they now have experience in the position.Being president is a very difficult job. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to step in on day one and know exactly how to do everything they need to do to pass their agenda.

From what I can tell, he supports the 99%. Most of the Republicans support the 1%. That makes it difficult to get anything that would actually help the 99% through the Republican controlled House as well as the Republican minority dominated Senate.

I tend to take a candidate's positions during the campaign as a sort of list of ideals. Kind of an "If I were supreme tyrant of the US and could do as I wished, this is what I would do," sort of thing.Of course, that's not entirely true, as there is a fair amount of pandering involved as well. I'm an idealistic cynic. I want to believe the best about people, but I tend to assume that they're lying or that something is going to hinder them from fulfilling their promise. Obama came into the presidency promising to "change the culture" in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, he can't really do that. In order to get anything done, especially as a President with no real legislative powers, he has to get things passed by a divided congress, and more than that, a congress where half of the members are actively trying to stop you from doing anything.His idealism (and I truly believe he is an idealist) ran smack into reality, and he definitely stumbled. He compromised too much in an attempt to be "bipartisan" which only served to make him look weak. he has since started fighting back more, compromising less, but it takes a while before the first impression wears off. This is where idealism is dashed on the shores of reality. When you're up against a force that is intent on blocking your every move, it becomes a question of, "Do I compromise to get something done, or do I stand my ground, let both sides become entrenched, and stop anything from getting done at all?" The problem is, despite being called "The Leader of the Free World," the president doesn't have any more power than that of the bully pulpit. He can't introduce legislation in the congress, he can't vote on legislation, all he can do is try to get the people to agree with him so vocally that congress has to pass legislation in order to be reelected.Another issue is that, while Republicans are very much a "lockstep" party, wheras the Democrats have a hard time defining anyhting they all agree on.

You're right in that he doesn't get a vote on the legislation, but there have been some presidents who very much "[got] laws passed." LBJ was famous for his ability to convince legislators - in any party - to vote for what he wanted. He would make promises, make threats, cajole and pressure, and in the end, people would often walk out of a meeting feeling like they'd been steamrolled, but would vote the way he wanted.Other presidents have been very effective in using the bully pulpit to get popular support, making it untenable for certain people in the opposite party to oppose the president's agenda. JFK was an amazing speaker. When Obama campaigned, I was blown away by his speaking ability, but after he was elected, he seemed to decide to retreat. I understand his belief that it would be better to distance himself from certian laws in order to let the Senate or the House work out their compromises, but I believe he was wrong. He should be using the one great power of the presidency, the bully pulpit, combined with his natural oratoric skills to push his agenda. He's begun doing that lately, but I'm not sure how much of that is "campaign Obama" coming out rather than "governing Obama" changing.All in all, I think he did a good job, but I do think he could have been more effective and gotten a bit more than he was willing to compromise away in the end had he fought harder, and in public.

You're right, in that he's never going to convince everyone that he's right. All he needs to do, however, is make a majority of voters in a district agree with him in order for the person representing that district to either risk losing their job by going against their wishes, go out and actively campaign against what the president says, or capitulate and vote as the people want.There are definitely limits on what the President can do, however, Obama has not met those limits. The Republicans have dominated the discussion of just about every policy Obama and/or the Democrats want, even when they were the minority in both houses.This tends to lead to the impression that Democrats aren't fighters or don't have a position. This is obviously a false perception, but politics is often a battle of perceptions, and the Republicans have been winning that battle for decades. The Democrats need a fighter, and as the standard bearer of the party, Obama needs to be out there telling people what he wants, why he wants it, and why the people should want it, too. No, he didn't, however, he had the perception of being a fighter. Often, the vice-president takes on that role in modern politics, including LBJ right through to Dick Cheney. Biden has been even more absent, at least in perception, than Obama has been. The running jokes on late night TV are that Biden is kept in Cheney's "undisclosed location" in order to stop him from making gaffes and screwing things up more.Again, perception is everything.

It's called argument and debate. If you convince people that a public option for healthcare is a good thing, in that it will reduce costs, allow you to see any doctor, not just in-network ones, and foster more competition in the private insurance sector, they now agree with you, right? Perhaps "make someone agree with you" was poor wording, but I didn't think it was that opaque. Yeah, but unless they all reside in one state, or one district, this matters how? If they're a minority of most districts, then the person who panders to them exclusively will probably lose. I know he's a fighter. You know he's a fighter. Bob down the street? He doesn't. Why? Because Obama's fights are conducted off-screen. If Obama wanted to address the nation, he could be on all four networks, plus the three major news channels. He could argue that this policy will help you in these ways (being a great orator might require him to make this entertaining some way) The Republicans might then create an opposition piece, and it would probably play on the news networks, and maybe even on the regular networks, but not necessarily, and even if it did, it would still set up a perception that "this" is what Obama wants.A lot of people have no idea what he wants because he's not using the bully pulpit to get his ideas out to the nation. In a hyper-partisan news cycle, it requires great effort to do this, but it is not impossible. I'm talking about perception here. Those he could never convince can be written off, as, you know, he can't convince them. But what about the undecideds, the fence-sitters, the ones who might be persuaded to agree with him? He's doing little to convince these people. He's conceding a lot of people to the Republicans.He was elected by people voting for his ideas. Then, when he gets into office, he backs off, lets the grassroots organizations that were built to support his candidacy wither, and makes compromises. Those compromises were necessary. I agree with you, but he doesn't then go and explain the compromises, he lets the news agencies explain them (and they invariably count them as a failure), he lets the Republicans explain them (because they are not afraid to go on TV and crow about what they "made the President agree to" or what"concessions they were able to get."In response, Obama releases a podcast, or puts a paper up on the White House website. That's weak, it makes him look weak, and it is leading toward the perception that he isn't a fighter, that he's failed at getting his agenda done.Perception, perception, perception.

Yes, but if I don't even bother to make the argument, who is that going to convince? You said:

quote:

---

Recall that 27% of Americans think that Obama was born outside the US. That's over 100 million people, which constitutes the combined populations of 40 of the 50 states.

---

Last I checked, 27% is less than 40%. So there is definitely a way that I could group these people such that we could create a 60% supermajority in the Senate. In fact, if you made them 27% of every state, that would seem to make a 100 seat Ubermajority.Now, I realize this is not the way it is set up in reality, but I don't really think we can write off the entire population of 20 states, let alone 40 states. And you're talking straight population numbers, not likely voters. I also know that making it likely voters currently makes your point even stronger, but why is that? Could it be that there are a large number of people who see no reason to vote for democrats because they either see little to no difference between the two parties, a la Ralph Nader, or belivee that the difference is that the Democrats are the party of no ideas while the Republicans are the party of bad ideas, a la Lewis Black?Where do these perceptions coem from? Could a Democratic Party that works as hard as the Republican Party to get its message out and fight for their ideas maybe get a bit more traction? I like politics, that was one reason I volunteered to run Politicus Maximus when Percy was asking for someone to do a politics board. I know the benefits of a public option in healthcare. I saw very little coverage of anyone fighting for this idea. Let alone Obama.Obama signed the Executive order closing Guantanamo. He doesn't have the power to actually do anything about it though. There was a bit of fanfare about him signing it. I haven't heard it mentioned since, except by upset liberals claiming that Obama didn't do anything about it. Why hasn't he been on TV saying that Guantanamo needs to be closed, but Republicans in Congress are holding this up?I could go on. He gets on TV talking about jobs bills and some economic things, but he's pretty absent on social issues. I know what he wants, and I know that he doesn't have much power to make things happen in Congress, but he can certainly make it part of the discussion.Just recently, there was the sort of controversy over forcing religious institutions to offer contraception through their insurance plans. Republicans and some fundamentalists shrieked, the majority of Americans either supported the decision or were apathetic to it...he added a stipulation that the religious institutions didn't have to refer anyone or do anything proactive in regards to contraception, but all insurance providers needed to offer it. A masterful stroke, in my opinion. How was it spun in the media? "Obama compromises on contraception" as if it was a defeat and not masterful political jujitsu. People were wondering if it would be an election year issue. MSNBC.com said that this is a win for Obama if no one is talking about it this week. How is that a win? He should be on TV touting this move, letting the people know that he's sensitive to religious issues, but doesn't want to leave anyone unable to get contraception.Where is he? Who said anything about primaries? They could lose a general election, especially in a purple state. Absolutely they do, but I can't exactly say he was omnipresent in asking people to come out in support of universal health care. I heard Republican after Republican eviscerate "Obamacare." Death panels were everywhere. The Democrats wanted to kill Nana.The Democratic answer?
"Uh, no we don't."The Republicans have a massive noise machine. The Democrats don't....what they do have is the presidency. And all of those forms of advocacy are great. I applaud him for doing it. I hardly saw any of it. There wasn't a townhall meeting near me. I see Michelle Obama more than I see Barack Obama. She's making commercials about health and obesity and exercise. You know, the things she passionate about. These commercials appear on every TV channel you care to see. Obama makes speeches that are easy to turn off, and that I don't even hear about until the next day.Getting your message out is hard, but Obama uses old media alot, which doesn't have the impact it used to, and uses new media that only appeals to people who are either hardcore politicos or already agree with him.I don't exactly know what he needs to do...maybe commercials that aren't just campaign spots, but are actual advocacy spots that run year-round. Maybe he needs to come up with something to draw people to his speeches, rather than bore them.I'm not saying its not tough, and it isn't Obama's fault entirely, its a fault of the Democrats as a party, but Obama is the standard-bearer of the party. As such, the party's faults are perceived as his faults, fairly or unfairly. I hardly ever see him, except on the State of the Union...and again, I'm actually interested in politics. I see Republicans far more prominently than I see Democrats.Again, much of the problem with perception lies with the Democratic Party, but Obama is doing nothing to challenge that perception. What he's been doig obviously hasn't changed the narrative much, so he needs to do something different. The old saying about the definition of insanity comes to mind.In general, I agree with you. Obama has been a very good president in a very difficult environment and situation. However, he hasn't gotten that message out very effectively. He tries, he says in almost every speech that "this isn't going to be fixed overnight." I understand that it takes time for the economy to recover, it takes compromise to get anything passed in congress. But he hasn't been very effective in getting his successes out there, whereas his opponents have been very good at not only getting his failures out there, but have been very effective in casting his successes as even more failures.

How, pray tell, do I determine which arguments he didn't make? There is literally an infinite number of arguments he didn't make.What is relevant is that he didn't make arguments that convinced people, especially those that agree with him, to advocate on his behalf. I know. But, if 27% of the population of each state were the unconvinceable, that would be 27% of the country, would it not? Then, 73% of each state would be at the very least open to being convinced. If those people were convinced and equal portions of each group voted in both Senatorial elections per state, it would end up with 100 Senators on Obama's side, right? True. But this isn't what I was saying. If you took that 51% and shuffled the people around, such that sheer numbers were the same for each state, but it was now evenly distributed by percentage, then 51% of each state would equal 51% of the country. Exactly. Why is that? That heritable difference in personality-type also includes the fact that progressives (liberals, take back the word, damnit!) are more open to nuanced, arguments. They also tend to focus on good images, wheras conservatives focus on bad images. Again, we can use this difference in messaging, making the discussion one of positives versus one of negatives, and increase the percentage of liberal voters while decreasing the percentage of conservative voters.Messaging will still work, it will just take hard work. Unfortunately, I can't view videos at work. I know he's on TV, just not TV that anyone watches. I do understand them, but maybe I'm a bit biased by living in one of the purplest states in the nation, where independents do have a very strong influence. That is why I mentioned that the effect would be more pronounced in such purple states.I realize that incumbents have an advantage. Many people rate their congressperson higher than they rate congress as a whole. It's them thinking that all politicians are corrupt and bad...except mine. I certainly did not say he didn't do them, in fact I applauded him doing them. I said what he did was not effective. Town Hall meetings are very ineffective, they influence the people there, but by and large, the people there already agree with him. He would need to do many more town hall meetings to influence a sizeable percentage of the population. They're effective in primaries, but almost useless in generals and as a policy pusher.As for TV, again, he's on TV that people don't watch, which again, is ineffective. He could go on The Daily Show (he did before becoming President, but now it's not good enough for him?) It would reach a younger audience, those very people he needs to reach out to. He could do public awareness commercials, or advocacy commercials that will be run on every channel. It'll reach a larger group of people and give them something to think about.Commercials work. I do give a shit. I love politics. The avergae voter doesn't. They are the ones he's not reaching. Wow.Me: Obama is ineffective in his messaging.
Crash: No he's not, he's on TV everywhere.
Me: Perhaps, and good for him, but its not effective. People change the channel.
Crash: You need to take more responsibility for politics.
Me: Even if I did, how does that make him more effective?

Ok, this is what I mean to say.Obama has done a lot, in fact, he has done more than I expected, considering the current climate of hyperpartisanship in Washington.Unfortunately, the common perception of Obama is thathe has done enxt to nothing, that he doesn't fight for his ideals, that he is quick to compromise away his ideals in order to appear bi-partisan.This perception is wrong, but the fact that it persist is proof that he, and his advisors, and the Democrats, have not been effective in getting his successes before the people. They need to do more to fix that.Most people don't watch political speeches. So making more political speeches doesn't do much good. Creating blog posts and podcasts on the White House website are not effective, the only epople watching/reading are already in Obama's camp or are hard-core politicos.He needs to find a way to reach the common person and make his case, rather than letting the Republicans do it. They have Talk Radio, they have the elderly who are more likely to watch news. The Democratic base is likely to be younger, more technically savvy, and more likely to get their news and media from other sources.So, what do I suggest the Obama administration do? Advocay commercials that run on cable (and I don't mean campaign commercials, necessarily.) Perhaps they can include a popular band to open a speech and close a speech, making it more likely that younger people will watch. Maybe they need to get younger, media aides to send out e-mails, update Facebook, or tweets.Maybe they should look to the science of liberalism versus conservatism and realize that tactics that work for one group won't work for the other group. Liberals are more likely to respond to a positive message than a negative one, conservatives are the opposite.In any case, the media landscape is much more fragmented than it was even in the 90s, and the Democrats are slow to respond to that fragmentation. The Republicans, by and large, do not need to respond because their base is more likely to still be using the old-fashioned media. This isn't fair, but it's true.Obama has been an amazing president, and the fact that this isn't recognized is, partially, his, and his party's, fault.

A large part of his job is driving the national agenda and the having a conversation about what is needed to make this country the best we can. So, no, I don't want him campaigning for re-election, but I would like to see him campaigning for his policy ideas.But it doesn't necessarily need to be just him, he has advisors, aides, and a political party, all of whom could be out advocating for him more effectively than they are. His message isn't resonating, so something needs to change.

No. It's pointless to use them as they are and have been used because that tatctic no longer works. More and more people watch cable rather than the "Big 3 (or 4) Networks," so in order to reach those people, you need to go where they are. It would be a definite possibility. It may turn out that having a band would do nothing, but I would rather see it tried, than to just assume it won't work.From your link:

quote:

---

No White House in history better knows the awesome ability of social media and blogs to affect the national narrative than the current one, an administration swept into power thanks in large part to those very platforms. To keep this momentum heading into the 2012 election cycle, the Obama administration is now making moves to integrate an online rapid response team inside the White House communications office.

---

They're doing this for the campaign. As I said, Obama is an awesome campaigner. Why weren't they using these during the rest of his administration to counter attacks on policy proposals?If it's illegal to do so, then I'll accept that answer, but I'll feel that perhaps those rules should be looked at in light of the 21st century and our technological society. Progressives don't respond to authoritarian types. However, that doesn't mean they don't respond to anything. They're not all apathetic layabouts. They connected with him during the campaign and came out in droves. I realize that keeping that high level of passion going is probably impossible, but a low simmer would be achievable, I would think. You claim it's impossible. I don't mean mind control. I understand there are people who will disagree with him. But, there are people who would agree with him, if they knew what he was doing and why. He hasn't reached those people. Again, it may be impossible to reach those people because they don't want to be reached. I'm just not willing to write them off yet, because if we do, it will lead to more Republicans in office and more bat-shit crazy legislation.I'm very encouraged by the fact that people seem to be moving to his side now that his campaign team has started ramping up and the economy has continued to improve. I understand that the economy is a better predictor of Presidential approval than anything else. I also know that the President has almost no effect on the economy.Maybe I'm just frustrated at the human condition and taking it out on Obama undeservedly, but it's either believe people in general are stupid, or that there's something he could be doing better to reach them. I don't want to believe people are stupid.

Not quite. Obama wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 28%, but wants to pay for doing so by closing loopholes that have allowed some businesses to pay far less in taxes, with some even paying none at times.The Republicans, who are so focused on paying for any new programs that they almost didn't pass the payroll tax credit extension, want to reduce the corporate tax rate to as low as 25%, but leave all the loopholes in place...essentially making the deficit even bigger without "paying for it" elsewhere.So, the Republicans haven't been asking for the same thing, they've been asking for something irresponsible and dumb.Edited by Perdition, : speeling

I think a more pertinent question is, was the German invasion of Poland Angela Merkel's fault?If no, why not?
If yes, why?

This isn't Jar, and I would say the German invasion of Poland was not moral. I would also say the invasion of Iraq was not moral.Neither of these invasions occured on Obama's watch or by his command. In fact, in the case of Iraq, he voted against the AUMF. So this was why I asked the question. Since the invasion of Iraq was done by a different person, it seemed to be the same as asking of Angela Merkel was responsible for Germany invading Poland, as she was likewise a different leader from the one who did the invading.

This is true from a moral relativist standpoint.I take it you aren't a moral relativist, and it seems pretty obvious that jar is. I doubt you'll ever come to an agreement on this.