Obama: An inept, amateurish failure
By DOUG THOMPSON

Like an increasing number of Americans, I’m sick and tired of the ineptitude of Barack Hussein Obama.

I’m sick of his lies. I’m sick of his inability to do his job. I’m sick of his abandonment of virtually all of the promises he issued with so much gusto during the 2008 election.

I’m mad at myself for ever — even for a cybersecond — buying into the snake oil illusions of this morally corrupt, intellectually-dishonest bastard.

As a President, Obama is a monumental failure. As a human being, he is devoid of morality, honesty or ability to accept responsibility for his actions.

He’s living proof that affirmative action can — and does — fail to work, even at the highest levels of government.

What — in retrospect — drove this nation to put such an inexperienced moron into the highest office in the land? A first-term Senator? A product of the Chicago Democratic machine? What the hell were we thinking?

True, we didn’t have much choice when it came to the Presidential pool in 2008. When it came to choosing between Obama or McCain, American voters felt like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

But Obama could go down as one of the worst Presidents in American history — an amatuer so incapable of handling the job that even George W. Bush — the man Obama blames for all his failtures — comes out looking like a more capable President.

Even Democrats privately call Obama an amateur. In the House and Senate chambers, they whisper and laugh at his many mistakes and realize that they — like too many others in Americans — were had by a con man.

Nineteen months into his administration of mishap, missteps and mistakes, Obama continues to spout the same verbal mantra: It’s not my fault. George W. Bush did it all. I just inherited the mess.

George W. Bush did not orchestrate a budget-busting, lobbyist-crafted phony health care reform bill that will do nothing to provide affordable medical care to Americans who need it most.

George W. Bush did not expand the Afghan war into another Vietnam-style morass.

Bush made a ton of mistakes and his administration put this nation into one hell of a mess but Obama has done nothing to turn the country around. His inability to build the coalitions he promised as a candidate has deepened the gridlock in government and deepened the economic mess.

Polls show Americans no longer buy into Obama’s “it’s all Bush’s fault” whines. They want action, not excuses. They want a leader, not an equivocator.

At this critical time, America needs a leader.

Barack Hussein Obama ain’t one.

He’s just another political hack elected to a job he can’t handle and was never qualified to do in the first place.

And we’re the idiots who continue to put these failures into office.


Doug Thompson.

.

Isn't every President "an inept, amateurish failure" once they are hired? As Mellow pointed out on another thread, any President is more qualified after eight years in office, then when first getting in...



I saw the entire 38:36 episode of The View from last Thursday, and the Barack Obama that was being "interviewed" by the ladies, is exactly the Barack Obama that I voted for.

...for whatever reason, he can't translate the candidate Barack to the President Barack.

But, he's intelligent enough to know to work on those skills.

If President McCain could have done any better at "building coalitions" it would have been because there are Democrats in Congress who are willing to vote for the other side's bills (and even co-author them) if they would be good for the country.

President Obama's "failure" to build those coalitions has nothing to do with his abilities, or lack thereof: It is the stated strategy of the GOP leadership in Congress. The President could propose a bill on motherhood and apple pie, and the GOP would filibuster, just to deny him victory.

If you demand a Democratic President who can get any bill he proposes through Congress, then you'll have to send a bus full of obstructionist congress-critters over a cliff.

Gee Doug I have a question ... it appears to me to be fairly simple matter and not requiring too much subjectivity but what metrics have you used to define your characterization of a President's measure of success? I hope it is not your gut feelings as I have some medication for that.

'
Well, then, he well fulfils that great ideal of his country, a President who truly represents the American people.

Link? Here is mine....

American College of Physicians

There are many problems that we face in our health care system. One of the key problems is the idea the idea that insurance should be optional. You can imagine what would happen to the cost of home insurance if it was totally optional... and people only bought insurance when they needed to make a claim. A key requirement for affordable insurance is the need to have everyone covered... which is aproblem thie bill mostly addresses.... and is why in the future we will not need to worry about being refused for coverage because of pre-existing conditions

By the way, Doug.... what George Bush did orchestrate was adrug coverage plan the forbid the government from negotiating lower prices with drug companies.... I guess that is what you mean when you say "George W. Bush did not orchestrate a budget-busting, lobbyist-crafted phony health care reform bill".... Yeah right, Lobbyists had nothing to do with the fact that price negotiation is prohibited....

fair and balanced
?
How about naming one "leader" that would/could satisfy the requirements as you see them.
That seems to be a reasonable and serious question.

There is something unseemly about Democrats constantly whining about Republicans notlettting Democrats do anything when Democrats control the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Fortunately, the Right-thinking people have 41 votes in the Senate.

The sequel in this fair and balanced editorial seems to be writing itself out there on the innertubes.
It's aptly named "George W. Bush...miss me yet?"

But I'm not buying it, not for a penny.
Barack Obama is causing me to rack up some serious buyer's remorse but in my book George W. Bush is still George W. Bush.
He's not looking better, not by comparison, not by any stretch.
It's just that President Obama has failed to leverage any of the political capital that swept him into office.

An inept driver doesn't make the drunk driver who just went wobbling by a few minutes ago look any better.
If that were the case there would be very few DUI arrests because there's no shortage of numb nut drivers on the road today.

I don't know what the payoff is for a rehabbed George W. Bush, aside from maybe better speaking fees.

And when you add up all the baggage from President Bush's support structure, the Republican Party, you're forced to remember exactly what it was that sent you screaming into the night the first time around.

Obama lacks the support structure that currently enables Republicans to earn tackle football hits and injuries in a touch football match.

Truly, if the Dems had twenty more folks like Alan Grayson, Al Franken and Anthony Weiner, they could rule the world.
But this doesn't excuse President Obama's lack of ability in getting tough when it's called for.


McCain?
Pondering it All might have hit the nail right on the head with his assessment of McCain. There's just that one thing that kept a lot of people from voting for him. It's something which reflects on his ability to make wise choices, it's SARAH PALIN.
But President Obama cannot rely on the excuse that Republicans are "filibustering America".
That explains much but excuses little.
It's the president's duty to interpret the actions of the GOP minority for what it is, and explain to the American people what's going on.

The GOP has simply been the master of their message.
Obama and the Dems have failed miserably in this regard.
And that's why some of us are tempted to take another wistful look at the good old days of George W. Bush.

I have the cure for that.

Then there is the issue of financial reform...

Of course lots of people are dissatisfied with the result. However they are not in agreement about what is wrong or how to do the bill differently.

It is worthwhile to consider that some peole who have no vested political interest are fairly positive about the bill.

Steven Davidoff--Professor Davidoff...isciplinary research in law and finance.

OK... so I admit that Davidoff has actually written several books about the subject of Law and finance, and he actually read the entire bill... Surely that is enough to disqualify his opinion in the face of the expertise of Doug Thompson.

Notice that I didn't say that careening bus should be filled with Republicans. There are plenty of Democratic seat reservations in there...

Obama-Care (AKA Romney-Care) is not my ideal solution, but what it will accomplish in terms of universal access to insurance and insured's rights will be treated by history as being on par with Medicare. Twenty years from now, only the politically insane (IE. the Libertarians) will still want to rescind it, and the vast majority of Americans will still be laughing at their ideas.

There are many things I miss at this site (particularly the great people and their opinions I have come to appreciate through the years)...these repetitive naysaying columns of Doug's are not one of them.

while it is true there are a majority of people sporting the democratic party label .... it is quite obvious to anyone who has read anything about Washington politics that not all of them are rigid partisans ... the Democratic Party affords a much larger tent for more diverse views than the Republican Party and thus it is not a clear cut matter that anything offered as legislation is a sure thing as in trying to convince conservative Dems to vote the party line

If one looks around at what Dems and Repubs have done to the country, one would have to wonder if they are laughing to avoid crying.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

One has to wonder what the party excuse would be if Dems held 100 percent of the House, Senate, and the White House. It does get old.
Yours,
Issodhos

Good idea, let's try it and see.

It could certainly happen, Ardy. Not this election cycle but just a few down the road. Without the bulldog determination of republicans to filibuster President Obama into a failed presidency it is entirely possible that we would have seen much of the change promised by Barack Hussein Obama during his campaign. The Birthers, Baggers, Deathers, and Taxers have set an agenda to "take back their country". Okay, let's say they do...then what? They have no plan to fix anything, just a plan to stop democrats from trying to fix anything. The anger that democrats have faced will multiply when republicans do even worse. It's all about jobs now. Until a lot of Americans get back to work and get some money in their pockets they are just gonna get madder and madder.

Every so often I read a statement on this site so outragous I have to think "He can't be serious". This quote reminds me of a Dave Matthews line about whistling past our grave, or another song I can't remember talking about walking through life with our eyes closed.

The power of the Presidency is the bully pulpit that comes with the office. In the end America wants to support every President until the President no longer deserves their support. Usually, when a President loses public support, his policies are so unpopular that the bully pulpit just doesn't work anymore. Obama had a chance to actually make a difference, but he refused to. Instead of working both sides of the aisle, he tried to look like he was working both sides of the aisle. Instead of trying to forge partnerships, he forged a partisanship and when things became so obviously anti, he used the "History will praise you" routine to force a bad bill onto America.

The Baggers, and Birthers and Deathers and whomever else you want to point to are going to make a difference in the next election and hopefully in 2012. They will put a stop to the mistaken presidency named Barack Hussein Obama.

I have no doubt that you are right. This was a decision made by Republicans on the day he was elected. Not his policies, not anything he had done nor even promised. Simply that foolish Americans had the audacity or stupidity to elect a Democrat to the presidency, worse yet a Black Democrat!
So, let's say they retake the House the Senate and the Whitehouse? Then what? With Newt Gingrich and Sarha Palin at the helm where will they steer the nation? Away from Obama is not good enough. It must be into prosperity or the backlash will be even worse than Democrats are facing in this election cycle.
I sincerely hope that Republicans retake the nation and set it onto a path towards a golden future. A path where all Americans, who work as hard as you did, will be rewarded as well as you have been for their efforts. At the same time I sincerely doubt that they are any more prepared to handle the massive problems we face than was President Obama and his failed Congress.

you should know, you have authored most of them!

And I will never deny it.

Try as I may, I just don't see the "massive problems" you tell us we have, 1979 was at least as bad and with inflation added into the equation a much harder problem to solve. I admit I am not an Obamite, but I never rooted for him to fail. I actually wanted him to succeed, and succeed wildly, but I didn't have much confidence that he would. He has proven every person who voted for McCain correct, and McCain would have been a caretaker at best. The problem is that Obama wanted to forward a very liberal agenda and he schemed to do so any way possible. He never really tried to compromise with the Republicans, who knows if they would have compromised, but because Obama just paid lip service to the idea we will never know.

What we need is somebody who doesn't think in dogma, and Obama is nothing if not dogmatic. We need a politician who can navigate Congress and form partnerships. A politician who knows how to compromise. A politician who isn't married to any experimental ideas of how to run the country. That person is nowhere I can see.

During the crash of 2008, people rated it as the most severe economic crisis since the great depression... And, I have to say that my memory of the 1979 ere is that there was no concern that the entire world economic system would collapse. No big banks on the verge of failure, no imminent collapse of GM and Chrysler. No Failure of the worlds largest insurance company. And, importantly, we still had a manufacturing base... so that when demand did pick up, there would be jobs making products here in the USA.


But still, taking 1979 as a baseline for comparison with 2009 ....Here is the subsequent performance from 1979....

link

And your point is that this is so much more admirable than Obama has achieved in 18 months?

It just seems to me that people's expectations have shifted for Obama.... not to mention the rose colored glasses used to view past performances

Reality check: The American people did and does support Obama. His party has comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress. His program would have been expeditiously passed if it were not for the archaic insanity of the privilege to filibuster, which makes effective government in the US impossible---and marks the US as a failed state amid the developed countries of the world.

NO! My point is that I am sick of people telling me what we cannot do. Tell me what can be done to slow or reverse the trend, but judt do keep telling me that all hope is lost.

1979 SUCKED! Jimmy Carter was the most demotivating person I can imagine. His fireside chats were the sponsored by Sominex and bottled by them to induce sleep. Reagan came into office and used the bully pulpit and turned public attitude around from we can't to we can almost overnight. He used every trick he could to do it, and got lucky along the way, but nothing will turn around until attitudes turn around.

GOD am I glad you moved to Canada, you'll fit right in up there.

'
We both rejoice.

However, you did not deal with the point. How very different from your usual careful analysis.

One of those opinions I've come to admire through the years...

One of the two major parties has earned the nickname "The Party Of No" No Insurance Reform, No financial reform. No chance they will compromise on any issue. No way they will let President Obama appear successful because that would cost them even more seats in Congress.
Show me the money. How does your party plan to achieve success?
As near as I can tell there is No plan except to prove Obama a failure in order to win elections. Unless they come up with a plan and achieve success, implement it, and make voters happy, Republican success will turn very quickly to defeat again.
I don't give a rat's ass which party puts Humpty Dumpty together again but the party of No doesn't appear focused on anything but winning elections.
The Party of No spine isn't much better but they are trying to get something done even if it is wrong.

So why would I waste a minute analyzing your thoughts when I disagree with them totally?

Wait! Wait! Let me get this straight!

You disagree with my thoughts totally, and you did not waste a minute examining them?

Interesting.

Have you ever thought of geting yourself a radio talk-show?

Can we stop with the whole childish "Party of NO" BS? It still comes down to the President selling his platform to America and having America tell their Rep and Senators to agree with the POTUS. If the President can't convince the public he can't implement his platform.

As far as I am concerned Obama is responsible for his own failure, spectacular as it has been. His signature piece of legislation is hated by the public and is very questionable from a leagl standpoint. His standing in Congress is slightly less than Jesse Jackson's and his standing with the public is just about the same. I am not somebody who makes excuses for my failures and I refuse to let others make excuses for politicians. What could have been a complete success has turned sour, all because Obama didn't understand that Americans don't want their government telling them what to do.

For 6 years your party played the same game as the Republicans are playing right now, except the public liked GW more than they like Obama. GW, for as big a moron as he was, was successful is using the power of the Presidency top get his way with Congress. The Dems had to resort to outright lies to derail his Presidency, the Res only have to point at the deficit and the socialist tendencies that Obama shows and ask "Do you really want the government telling you that you HAVE to buy that product?" "Do you really believe that the promises that the President made about YOUR health plans are true?" "Do you really believe that anything run by the government will be cost effective?"

It isn't the Republican's fault your guy sucks! It is your fault for election a guy who had 18 months experience as a Senator and whose only other job, community organizer, is closer to being a huckster than it is to being an employee. So, stop cryinng on my shoulder and telling me it is my fault. Had you listened to me 20 months ago you would have seen what a fraud Obama is. Instead you, and your party, have been set back years because you decided that ideology was a better option than competence.

Not that I am complaining, just that your choice of candidate has hurt millions of Americans in 18 short months.

if you think that's REALLY how it works you're, well, way lost brother. pols don't listen to their constituents. they don't vote based upon their constituents desires. surely you know that. i guess my ignorance comes in believing that most people no better these days. but, well, who knew ...

In a word: No. Until they do something positive they will be seen AS A NEGATIVE.

The reality is I am also against the policies as mischaracterized by the conservative propaganda machine ... jezz .... death panels .... i am against them too
So the reality is if we take an objective look at the policies we will see something quite different than portrayed by you

Oh, and it Aint my party partner. But at least you admit that the Republicans are playing a game with our countries future.
Was the other party playing a game during the Bush administration or was he really and truly a a failure as a president?

This another laughably disingenuous statement.

If by liberal you really mean not conservative then I suspect you believe moderates are liberals as well and thus my assessment above. I suspect you can't name one Obama policy which was not also promoted by some Republican. Wouldn't that make people like Romney a liberal? So you have a very distorted view of what a liberal is. And very liberal ... doesn't deserve a response.

Anyway possible? Following the same rules that we have developed in Congress in over 200 hundred years is anything possible. O gee you are right. And what is your point? That Congressmen all do the same thing?

Are you sure you didn't want Pres Obama to fail?

Yes your choice, his administration, shoved America over a cliff and then had the gall to say we have had an epiphany and have changed our ways ... give me a frigging break

The current administration has tried a weak economic stimulus based on the assumption the recession was not as deep as it apparently is/was. What economists know (gee not based on your gut feeling or your particular agenda driven politics but economic models based on mathematics) is that the policies used in the last administration will not help turn this economy around, so trying to promote out of date economic policies which historically don't work is not a solution i.e. the party which says they have solutions are actually not solutions but simply the party of "no." I am personally looking for people who may have solutions. I don't care if they are conservatives or liberals .... do they have solutions?

Now if you have information from an economist (I know it has to be a conservative from you) who has a reasonable solution which can be documented then please make him or her be known.

Lord knows I have not been overly happy with much of what Obama has done. I also suspect that anybody who is president would receive the same. I do find it interesting that the healthcare thing is condemned before it even kicks in. I am not a real big fan of the financial reform but they made a run at it and did some things well. We should keep in mind that big money has, pretty much, bought the congress of the United States. The recent try, and failure, in passing a law simply stating that if an oil company messes things up then they are responsible for fixing it is a very good example of what big money can do. The fact that healthcare and financial reform was even vaguely passed, given the millions and millions spent on lobbying/buying the congress, is actually pretty impressive all on its own. Its equally obvious that if the Republicans were in charge NOTHING would have been done on these fronts.

I suspect, however, that the Obama administration is actually going to be judged what they have been doing in the background. They have made some really good appointments, they have been gathering data bigtime and actually have plans for it, they set an impossible date to get out of Afghanistan which can actually get us out of the hellhole (I think). All in all I suspect the Obama administration will be thought of in quite a positive light as time passes. I could, just as most can, list a litany of decisions and poor executions by this administration. On the other hand nobody should forget what he inherited. Folks tend to forget he took over during a period when we were losing, for instance, over 700,000 jobs a month! The same list, when applied to the previous administration, I think, would be considerably longer than what Obama will eventually leave.

"...Obama: An inept, amateurish failure..."

For an inept, amateurish failure, Mr. Obama has three major legislative victories (actually 100%) and now two SCOTUS victories (...here too, 100%)

I wonder what a stellar, accomplished President's achievement record would look like?

How was almost a trillion dollar stimulus package "weak"? Why would this administration think that the recession was not as deep as it was when anyone with a functioning brain who was looking at the time at the escalating job losses, idled shipping and plants, collapsing retail sales knew that we were in a very bad and very deep recession? Is this administration made up of economic ignoramouses or were the economists unable to conjure up and inform the administration what their mathematical "models" projected for the future? What are the out-of-date policies unsuccessfully used in the past that did not work? Just curious.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

You have failures? What happened to setting reasonable goals, working hard and everything coming up peaches and cream? That's not a fool-proof plan?

Ronald Reagan's. Go ask Ma.

Hmmm...Ronald Reagan...wasn't he the one who...


But then I guess it's only members of the other party who can rightly be deemed treasonous, Republicans after all have America's best interests at heart.

Because it wasn't enough.

Excerpt from much longer article.

gee I dunno ... maybe you have ignored the American political process but here it is ... when partisanship reigns supreme make the weakest shittiest laws possible then allow those on the sidelines (such as yourself)to make all kinds of incredulous accusations as if they were legitimate criticisms.

Supply side economics: every analysis I have done on the raw data has not shown any of the advantages proclaimed by conservative politicians, in fact I believe just recently several Reagan economic advisers have stated a policy such as continuation of tax cuts will not be beneficial in the current state of the economy

Personally I believe the beast (the economy) has evolved and the economists have not caught up yet in their understanding of it

eco 101 .... really

I agree with all you said...
and would only add that the economy is constantly evolving. As such economists are inherently always playing catch up. They may have learned something from our current difficulties... but the next problem will look different... and it will also be obvious in retrospect

Oh, good grief. The standard Democratic or New Left-influenced modern liberal movement excuse whenever one of their schemes fails. "We just needed more money!" "It was starved for funds!!" Yada yada yada. It do gets old, Chuck.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

So far, we are in agreement.:-)

So, you are saying that you and the other party faithful support the making of "the weakest, shittiest laws possible", but I and others who refuse to do so are somehow expected to be quiet because the legislation you refer to as "weakest shittiest" should be above criticism? How odd.:-)

So, it is supply-side theory that your are referring to -- otherwise known as Republican Keynesianism. Since the promoting of this government economic policy we have had a combination of marginal tax decreases marginal tax increases, capital gains decreases, continuous spending increases, accelerated tax recovery schemes, rejected tax recovery schemes, special tax increases, special tax 'loophole' eliminations, etc. In other words, we have engaged in the same continuous Keynesian government policies in one fashion or another since the fellow first said "yes" before he later said "no".

An interesting fantasy -- well, maybe not so interesting. But, beware going beyond eco 101 -- the chances of recovery can be slim.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. Care to take a shot at the rest of my concerns relative to your prior post? "How was almost a trillion dollar stimulus package "weak"? Why would this administration think that the recession was not as deep as it was when anyone with a functioning brain who was looking at the time at the escalating job losses, idled shipping and plants, collapsing retail sales knew that we were in a very bad and very deep recession? Is this administration made up of economic ignoramouses or were the economists unable to conjure up and inform the administration what their mathematical "models" projected for the future? What are the out-of-date policies unsuccessfully used in the past that did not work? Just curious.:-)"

That's right! Everyone knows that problems aren't solved by spending wealth and effort to solve the problems. The so called problems don't exist. Everyone knows that all the apparent problems will dissolve into the ephermal nothingness that they truly are by eliminating taxes on wealth and removing all hinderences on an individual's ability to achieve their natural level of success.

You aren't the least bit interested in anyone "taking a shot" at your concerns. You dismissed the answer to your question by broadbrushing it with empty political labels (yeah, throw around the word "left"; that helps ;rolleyes:). And then you whine that no one is taking your questions seriously. Gimme a break. Irked is right to treat your comments with the sarcasm they deserve.

I too enjoy Irked's posts, Chuck, but one does have to pay attention to them to be sure he is doing the apples-to-apples thingie. For instance, in this one he erroneously uses "not throw wealth" in place of the more accurate "not throw more wealth". See the difference?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Many hold the mistaken belief that government "stimulus" can be effective and would only quibble over the most efficacious amount, when everyone knows that the single best thing that government can do to stimulate the economy is to disband itself and let a Free Market of Free Individuals grow and prosper.

When pigs fly...

Consider for a moment the pool of people available for this job... and the basis upon which the final candidate is selected.

Why would we expect different results?

Just for the purpose of discussion. let's suppose that we were to consider Ronald Reagan to be a great president....ok wasn't that pretty much just luck... I mean we selected a former B movie actor as president.... probably 99 out of 100 times that selection should work out badly. Clinton and Bush were inexperiences governors. Why would we think that John McCain would be great... or Sarah Palin?

I mean, no private organization would use such a process to select it's leader... for very good reasons.

I am not saying what we should do.... but all in all, it is not so very surprising the results that we get from the process.

Credit where credit is due -- President Clinton was governor for 10 or 12 years so he did have experience as a predator. President Bush -- not so much experience as governor, but raised by parents to be a predator.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

But you get my point? Clinton did not have the resume that would obviously qualify him to be considered more than an amateur at running the USA. Maybe Nixon was most qualified of recent presidents.

'

"They set up a President only to attack and vilify him, just as some...savages make an idol that they may kick and cuff while they pretend to pray to it."
---Charles Mackay, Life and Liberty in America, 1859

Yes, well it is always good to have someone to blame.... one would not want popular resentment to get in the way of business as usual