[les3547]

The real funny part is the main criticism is WHAT he hasn't done.

I'd settle for what he hasn't done as long as it is what he should have done, and if it were possible to do. Where's Mike and John when you need them?

[mikeSF]

i knew he was good but until reading that list did not fully comprehend how good a president he is. GO BAMA!

[jeffkrol]

If the GOP were a business, Bain would target it for restructuring | Jay Bookman

I’ve written this before, and I’ll write it again and again:

This country needs a Republican Party that does not treat words such as “moderate” and “compromise” as moral abomination. We need a more rational Republican Party. We need a Republican Party that at least attempts to reach Americans of every race, religion and economic circumstance. Most important, we need a Republican Party capable of offering the American people a vision that matches up against reality and that does not require supporters and candidates to pretend to believe things that are not and never were true.

Conversely, we do not need a Republican Party that explains its losses as a failure to adhere to an increasingly cramped, even claustrophobic ideology.

Some figures on the right understand that as well if not better than those of us on the outside. I’ve already lauded a recent piece in Politico by Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, regarding Romney’s “47 percent” disaster. If you haven’t read it, do so.

Now let me add two other pieces to your reading list. The first is by Michael Gerson, the former Bush speechwriter, in The Washington Post. Here’s a small taste:

Yet a Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class.

Conor Friedersdorf, writing in The Atlantic, offers an analysis that is similar but more complex and fundamental. It is provocative not in the Glenn Beck sort of way, drawing attention with the rhetorical equivalent of circus clowns and acrobats, but provocative because he gets at the heart of things.

He writes:

“It scarcely matters if the GOP starts tilting three more degrees toward social conservatism, or fiscal conservatism, or libertarianism, or centrism, if that agenda is shaped and pursued by a coalition incapable of adjudicating arguments on their merits, or separating fact from fantasy, or maintaining the most basic ethical standards.

This truth was evident during the GOP primary, where voters were presented with unacceptable candidates as diverse as the right itself. So broken are the information outlets (that) Tea Partiers in particular use to assess reality that for months they took Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich seriously as potential or actual presidential contenders. They had every opportunity to see the respective character flaws of these figures; they were mostly self-evident, and persuasively described in great detail by the political press. Ah, but that’s the liberal media talking. With that phrase, any huckster can short-circuit the Tea Party reality-assessing apparatus for months. And while movement conservatism has failed for decades to shrink government, it has succeeded spectacularly in creating jobs for hucksters in the private sector.”

The Republican Party prides itself as the party of business. It preaches the importance of competition in culling the winners from the losers. However, it now finds itself in the position of a major brand name that year after year is losing market share to its competitors. Its salesmen out in the field — at least in regions outside the South — are having trouble making their numbers, and while the initial response back at headquarters may be to try to get better salesmen, at some point the repeated failure of that response must begin to provoke more difficult questions about the product itself.

[ihasa]

A Big Mac has 550 calories. McDonald’s customers say: So what?

I did find one customer who had noticed the calorie labels: Dick Nigon of Sterling, Va. He and his wife, Lea, had stopped by McDonald’s after seeing an exhibit at the Renwick Gallery. Dick had ordered for the couple, noticed the calorie labels and liked them.

“I like that you have the information before you order,” he told me, when I asked about the labels. “It’s better than some kind of government health mandate in Obamacare.”

I told him that the calorie labels were, in fact, a government health mandate in Obamacare.

“Well that changes things a bit,” he responded. “I thought this was more of a voluntary sort of thing. Now I’m not quite sure how I feel about it.”

He and his wife talked it over a bit — she eating her grilled chicken sandwich, him eating a Big Mac — and didn’t come to much of a conclusion about whether this was a good idea.

“The government does do certain things to make us healthy,” Dick said. “But you have to draw the line somewhere.”

[GeneV]

If the GOP were a business, Bain would target it for restructuring | Jay Bookman

That may be what is happening anyway. If you read Matt Taibbi's RS article about Bain's SOP for taking over a company, it often involved buying off the leadership of the organization, saying whatever it takes to get into power, then taking it over and restructuring.

[GeneV]

I don't exactly think that the Pentax Forums is a hot bed of conservatism. If you posted this else where on the internet, you would probably be able to inspire a lot more vitriol.

Yes, I suppose a post on Newsmax or Free Republic would get lots of vitriol. However, I am not even sure that American "liberals" outnumber American "conservatives" on this board.

[Rondec]

Yes, I suppose a post on Newsmax or Free Republic would get lots of vitriol. However, I am not even sure that American "liberals" outnumber American "conservatives" on this board.

Well, honestly, I think the biggest issues with his lack of leadership are the fact that for the first two years of his presidency, he did have majority in both houses of congress and did not put through enough stimulus (underestimated how bad the economy was) and did not put through a true Universal payer health care insurance plan (Medicare for all). He waited to see what Congress would come up with, which was a big mistake and they ended coming up with some cobbled together plans that are more fig leaf than true coverage. I understand that there were a lot of political issues in play with both of these situations, I just think being aggressive in both situations would have helped the American people more in the long run.

[GeneV]

Well, honestly, I think the biggest issues with his lack of leadership are the fact that for the first two years of his presidency, he did have majority in both houses of congress and did not put through enough stimulus (underestimated how bad the economy was) and did not put through a true Universal payer health care insurance plan (Medicare for all). He waited to see what Congress would come up with, which was a big mistake and they ended coming up with some cobbled together plans that are more fig leaf than true coverage. I understand that there were a lot of political issues in play with both of these situations, I just think being aggressive in both situations would have helped the American people more in the long run.

Fair points. However, when one talks about the majority in both houses, it overstates The President's power. He did not have a cloture majority of his own party in the senate, and Joe Lieberman straddles two parties now, having supported McCain. President Obama only got the Stimulus by wooing 3 Republicans.

President Obama really had a working cloture majority caucus in the Senate (counting Lieberman) for about 4 months. President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit A handful of the Dems who limited both the health care plan and stimulus were more conservative than the average Republican of 20 years ago, and one was very recently a Republican. They, and Republicans who allowed the bill out of committee, stripped the health care plan of any public option. Even then, the bill only passed by "reconciliation." I would like to have seen the President more aggressive, but I question whether the results would be better or zero.

[Rondec]

Fair points. However, when one talks about the majority in both houses, it overstates The President's power. He did not have a cloture majority of his own party in the senate, and Joe Lieberman straddles two parties now, having supported McCain. President Obama only got the Stimulus by wooing 3 Republicans.

President Obama really had a working cloture majority caucus in the Senate (counting Lieberman) for about 4 months. President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit A handful of the Dems who limited both the health care plan and stimulus were more conservative than the average Republican of 20 years ago, and one was very recently a Republican. They, and Republicans who allowed the bill out of committee, stripped the health care plan of any public option. Even then, the bill only passed by "reconciliation." I would like to have seen the President more aggressive, but I question whether the results would be better or zero.

Oh, I understand those things. There were significant numbers of lawmakers out there that didn't want Obama interferring with their making laws either. That said, if Obama had early on taken a stand behind a specific plan and sold it to the American people, things may have come out differently. For whatever reason, he wasn't willing to try, I guess because he thought he would be wasting political capital if it failed.

[GeneV]

Oh, I understand those things. There were significant numbers of lawmakers out there that didn't want Obama interferring with their making laws either. That said, if Obama had early on taken a stand behind a specific plan and sold it to the American people, things may have come out differently. For whatever reason, he wasn't willing to try, I guess because he thought he would be wasting political capital if it failed.

It may be that he could have sold the country on more. He passed the stimulus withing two weeks of inauguration. Perhaps he thought speed more than size was crucial. It would have been interesting to see if he could have gotten more. I don't think he realized how transient his majority would be.

[les3547]

A Big Mac has 550 calories. McDonald’s customers say: So what?

Quote:
I did find one customer who had noticed the calorie labels: Dick Nigon of Sterling, Va. He and his wife, Lea, had stopped by McDonald’s after seeing an exhibit at the Renwick Gallery. Dick had ordered for the couple, noticed the calorie labels and liked them.

“I like that you have the information before you order,” he told me, when I asked about the labels. “It’s better than some kind of government health mandate in Obamacare.”

I told him that the calorie labels were, in fact, a government health mandate in Obamacare.

“Well that changes things a bit,” he responded. “I thought this was more of a voluntary sort of thing. Now I’m not quite sure how I feel about it.”

He and his wife talked it over a bit — she eating her grilled chicken sandwich, him eating a Big Mac — and didn’t come to much of a conclusion about whether this was a good idea.

“The government does do certain things to make us healthy,” Dick said. “But you have to draw the line somewhere.”

I was telling my wife about this thread and how no Obama “dislikers” so far had listed any actual harm done to them or our country by President Obama. As proof that many people don’t know why they dislike him, I showed her Ihasa’s post of the McDonald’s patron who turned uncertain about liking calorie information after finding out it had been mandated by Obamacare. That prompted her to suggest, “it’s racism, that’s why they don’t like Obama.” When I didn’t voice agreement, she pressed me to explain what else it could be.

I first agreed there are some people for whom it’s pure racism behind their dislike for Obama, but added that for most individuals it is something else entirely. People when they are upset at someone will throw around personal insults, including racist disrespect, but it doesn’t mean the slur they use is really what they’re upset about (like Michael Richards—aka Kramer—using a racial slur at the Laugh Factory when he was actually upset about being heckled). I also pointed out that Herman Cain had been perfectly acceptable as a Presidential candidate, and Michael Steele had been RNC chairperson.

Since there’s been no list offered by conservatives, I decided to answer her by making my own list of their grievances. It’s a short list, but before the grievances make sense a couple of preliminary concepts are required:

A. There are those, Conservatives, who believe they should have to contribute as little as possible to maintaining services that benefit everyone (let’s call that “general care.”).

a. The legitimate concern of the conservative perspective is general care that creates citizens (perfectly capable of caring for themselves) who are too dependent on government.
b. The conservative principle is perverted when it is driven by excessive selfishness, greed and fear. Then we see a movement to exclude everyone from general care, whether their needs are legitimate or not, because they don’t want to have to contribute to a general care fund.
c. The conservative wing of the Republican party has been taken over by selfishness, greed and fear.

B. There are those who believe central government should make sure basic needs are met for everyone—Progressives. They believe in a strong general care system.

a. The legitimate concern of Progressives is that people who can’t get on their feet because of circumstances they were born into (i.e., through no fault of their own) need assistance on the path to learning how to take care of themselves. A second reason for general care is that some essential services, when left in the hands of the free market, are rendered unfair and unaffordable for too many people.
b. The progressive principle is perverted when care is provided that doesn’t help people learn to care for themselves, and thus, like a child who is spoiled, can become permanently dependent on others for survival. Also, if services are provided that stretch too far beyond basic needs so that the cost of general care becomes too expensive.
c. The Democratic party has moved right, a movement started by President Clinton, and continued by President Obama. They sit just right of center awaiting Republicans with whom they can compromise on a balanced approach to general care. Unfortunately, moderate Republicans are either submitting to the extremists or quitting politics altogether.


So here’s my list of 1:

Conservative List of Obama Grievances

!. Like any Progressive, President Obama would meet some resistance from we far right Conservatives. But as a clear member of a minority, he makes us afraid that he is going to try to bring all the minorities under the umbrella of general care (i.e., as a minority member he will try more than a White person would), and that it will cost all we hardworking honest folks money we think should only be spent on ourselves and our own. That is the main reason why we dislike and distrust Obama so much, his secret minority agenda.

There's also we greedy and selfish types. We promote fear to the masses, and raise it to the height of delusional paranoia, by manufacturing all variety of lies about Obama (his death panels, he's pushing for socialism, he's eliminated the work requirement for welfare recipients, he's forcing government down peoples’ throats, all those people for whom he wants a general care system are leeches, etc.). We greedy and selfish types just want to be richer and not have to give a wit for anybody else, and we are happy as clams when we scare the masses so well they are clueless why they like nutritional info with their burgers until they find out it is a result of Obamacare!

A Progressive's opinion: The only thing Progressives can do is keep trying to implement a proper general care system so that people will see for themselves that it isn’t socialism, it doesn’t take away true freedoms, and, especially, it lowers the cost of living while increasing the quality of life for everyone.

[Nesster]

Les, that is a very interesting write. However I'm thinking this is a continuation of the Clinton hate, but with an added 8 years of simmer. I'm thinking this hate is directly connected to the ju-jitsu these two Presidents did on the Republicans: they effectively co-opted the sane wing of the party and succeeded in improving things when by definition everything a Democrat does brings ruin to the country. Republicans can't believe they actually lost elections.

[jeffkrol]

A Conservative History of the United States : The New Yorker

[GeneV]

Les, that is a very interesting write. However I'm thinking this is a continuation of the Clinton hate, but with an added 8 years of simmer. I'm thinking this hate is directly connected to the ju-jitsu these two Presidents did on the Republicans: they effectively co-opted the sane wing of the party and succeeded in improving things when by definition everything a Democrat does brings ruin to the country. Republicans can't believe they actually lost elections.

I think you are at or near the point with that. The hatred of Presidents Clinton and Obama are the culmination of a type of faith-based, regional politics which accepts one's own "team" as the personification of good and the other "team" as the personification of evil. When I say "faith-based," I'm not talking about religion, but unquestioning faith in one's "side." My side can do no wrong, so your side must be evil when it differs.

Hearing a friend go on about how President Obama is not a real American was the epitome of this approach. Race may be a contributing factor to "otherness" but it is not racism in a segregationist sense.

[les3547]

Les, that is a very interesting write. However I'm thinking this is a continuation of the Clinton hate, but with an added 8 years of simmer. I'm thinking this hate is directly connected to the ju-jitsu these two Presidents did on the Republicans: they effectively co-opted the sane wing of the party and succeeded in improving things when by definition everything a Democrat does brings ruin to the country. Republicans can't believe they actually lost elections.

I think you are at or near the point with that. The hatred of Presidents Clinton and Obama are the culmination of a type of faith-based, regional politics which accepts one's own "team" as the personification of good and the other "team" as the personification of evil. When I say "faith-based," I'm not talking about religion, but unquestioning faith in one's "side." My side can do no wrong, so your side must be evil when it differs.

Hearing a friend go on about how President Obama is not a real American was the epitome of this approach. Race may be a contributing factor to "otherness" but it is not racism in a segregationist sense.

I think you make good points about the source of the hostility in congress and the politically-astute upper eschelons of their supporters. The Republicans were just as nasty when they got dirt on Clinton as they've been to Obama.

However, I was trying to give reasons for why the right wing masses, particularly those found in the Tea Party, hate Obama. They are not politically sophisticated, broadly educated, or generally as well informed as people found in the Republican establishment. It's the intensity of their hatred that has suprised me. One of my Libertarian friends typifies this who, while not happy about Clinton's election, handled it okay; but he went ballistic and was in a panic over Obama's election. I even know people who have always voted Democratic in the past who've become all panicky over Obama.

So my theory (based on rantings of the relative few far Righters I've been able to interview) is that the "extra" intensity of the far Right masses' fear, often expressed as hatred (and possibly accentuated by anxiety over the US financial collapse), is due to Obama being a minority person in a position of great power, that they fear he will use his power to force all Americans to help minorities/oppressed get on their feet, and that this "help" means everyone is going to have to chip in. The far Right masses would still dislike a white man, say Gore, for trying to do the same thing, but a representative of the very minorities they want to exclude, who has such power, is another matter. I'd guess the worst sort of personage they could imagine who'd cause more fear as President would be a Black lesbian whose father was from a communist country.

Anyway, If Obama's minority statuse does contribute to the fear of inclusiveness, then the fact that the main accusations the Tea Party levels against Obama—that he is a socialist and not a "true American"—are telling because socialization means everyone shares, while slave descendents, Indians driven out their lands, invading illegal aliens, queers . . . none of these deserve the benefits of a true American and so are to be excluded.

This article in the Huffington Post yesterday is interesting, worth a full read. Here's an excerpt:

The Tea Party is a historically exceptional confluence of two long-standing traditions on the American Right.

One tradition is extreme fiscal conservatism. These days this perspective is represented by such organizations as Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform. This tradition has been has been with us since the furious reaction against the New Deal within a certain very conservative sector of the American corporate elite. . . .The second tradition that comes together in the Tea Party is populist social conservatism. This tradition made early appearances in the beginning of the 20th century -- in the campaigns to establish prohibition and to prohibit teaching evolution. Both of these crusades ended poorly for the social conservatives, and they entered a more or less quiescent period of about 40 years. But then came the sixties.

Then the earth shifted beneath the feet of American social conservatives around several of their most fundamental and taken-for-granted beliefs: Sex roles (the women's movement); gender (the gay movement); patriotism (the anti-war movement); religion (legalizing abortion and banning school prayer); moral codes (sex, drugs, rock and roll, the counterculture, the liberal media.) Social conservatives mobilized. . . .

What makes the Tea Party unique -- and I emphasize unique -- in the march of modern American conservatism, is that the passions of the populist right, the uncompromising, expressive side of American conservatism, were brought to bear in the name of the doctrines of the fiscal extremists. Suddenly, the zeal and the vitriol usually reserved for opposing abortion or the "gay agenda" were being directed against Keynesian stimulus legislation, cap and trade climate legislation, economic regulation and, above all, expansion of health insurance coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

To use one of today's reigning clichés: the election of Obama and the financial and housing collapse -- both in fall 2008 -- created a perfect storm. For Tea Partiers, older white Americans, now toward the end of their working lives they were faced suddenly with the fear of an economic depression. And this fear turned into panic with the election of a president who promised to expand government programs. The Tea Partiers felt that expanding to new populations the benefits they already possessed, that they had earned, benefits like Medicare, was less an expansion of such programs than a zero-sum-like taking from them. Liberals coming to power in a moment of unprecedented economic crisis were going to dispossess them.

This panic sent thousands of Tea Partiers into the streets and organizing in spontaneous local groups. Dependency was about to run amok as social policy in their eyes. They saw themselves as the makers, now confronted by the takers; the productive "real Americans" versus the parasites; the deserving set upon by the undeserving.

As Mitt Romney put it in the now-famously exposed fundraiser talk in Boca Raton:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."