Time to consider "Worst Administration Ever"?

[Juan]

Thanks, Onan - I actually had not heard of most of those idiots.  Now we're dealing with specifics.  And I assume the Dennis Johnson you refer to is not the former NBA guard, who is who I immediately thought of.
As for the photos, I thought the first one had been discredited as a plant and not an actual Romney supporter.

[Sardondi]

Here's a telling statistic: more top officials in the Obama Administration have graduate degrees from Oxford (that's in England, not Mississippi) than from all public US schools. http://www.nationaljournal.com/decision-makers/more-top-obama-officials-have-graduate-degrees-from-oxford-than-any-public-university-in-the-united-states-20130719

How do you parody an administration full of ultra elites who make impassioned statements about how only they can truly know the plight of "the people". What bullshit. I am so sick of the political appointments - including, remember, not just cabinet positions and those countless agency slots, but the lifetime appointments for federal judges and Supreme Court justices - all coming from less than a dozen schools. It is inbreeding and it has already made our government sick.

On a slightly different note, in the last generation I think we've seen a change in the makeup of elected officials, even in Congress. The Republicans (other than the Republican Insiders who remain a class unto themselves), who once were by definition the guardians of Wall Street, are now more likely to be middle-class professionals who heard the call later in life. While the Democrats, once viewed as the committed long-haired fighters on the barricades, are now the ones cozied up to the Wall Street reptiles. The money boys have seen that it is better for their bottom line in the short run (unfortunately just about the only run there is today) to abandon any old ideas about supporting a political party based on ideology, and simply co-opt a bunch of Democrats with handsome campaign contributions. That way the Wall Streeters are grandfathered out of otherwise-onerous legislation, or become recipients of the magic Presidential King's X, which somehow immunizes them from coercive or painful provisions of statutes.

And don't think the drafters of Democrat legislation accidentally crafted the statutes so that they, as the party in power, could grant largesse at their option, thus building an immensely powerful incentive for affected businesses to become Democrat contributors. Just when think politicians can't become more cynical, they manage to go even lower. But then it's all about the Benjamins. Or should we just dispense with the fiction that we're dealing in quaint amounts like $100s, and start talking about how the Salmon Ps (Chase - $10,000) and Woodrows (Wilson - $100,000)? Because we're talking about political contributions which result in a benefit to the corporate cronies of what amounts to a suitcase full of Woodrows. Now that's Everett Dirksen-style* real money.


* Grand old man of Illinois Republican politics who served in the US House and Senate continually from 1933 until his death in 1969, who was famously quoted as, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."   

[Juan]

Where are the William Proxmire Democrats?

[onan]

Where are the William Proxmire Democrats?

Best question of the week.

[stevesh]

Yes, they all do it, but it might have been nice if The Golden One had put an end to this crock. (Full disclosure - my brother-in-law is career State Department and currently a US ambassador, but he has no chance at the ambassadorship in any one of the plum countries that these fund-rasing toadies get.)

"As of last month, Obama had given 32.2 percent of ambassadorships to political appointees -- almost identical to his first term rate and slightly higher than those of recent predecessors in the long-held tradition of presidents rewarding big-time financial supporters."

[Sardondi]

Where are the William Proxmire Democrats?

Or the Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman Democrats? Was that them at the Tea Party rallies?

[onan]

I don't know this Tea Party you speak of. I have no doubt to your sincerity. But I am much more aware of a somewhat limited intelligence Tea Party. One that believes that science is a wing of the communist party. That god belongs to the US and that Jesus hand delivered the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson.


Several days ago MV made a post about the Tea Party in its inception would have been attractive to the liberal minded. I don't know how I missed that.


And if this is so, I may have slighted one poster in particular and several in passing.


All that aside, the Tea Party, to me seems to have been hijacked by ultra conservatives... perhaps I am misled.

[Sardondi]

I don't know this Tea Party you speak of. I have no doubt to your sincerity. But I am much more aware of a somewhat limited intelligence Tea Party. One that believes that science is a wing of the communist party. That god belongs to the US and that Jesus hand delivered the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson...

You've been in an echo chamber. What you describe simply doesn't exist as a part of the Tea Party movement. Other than as clumsy provocations by progressives.

[PB the Deplorable]

Everyone knows the Conservatives - from Reagan on - are all stupid, and the Libs - starting with Obama and his teleprompter - are all just so smart. 

Only the most intelligent among us realize the answer to every problem is always more government spending.  Only our best and brightest understand it's never wise to look back to see what the actual results of policy have been.

[Yorkshire pud]

To turn this thread on it's head... Which was the best administration ever, and why; last 50 years? Try to keep it non partisan...(Wishful thinking I know)

[West of the Rockies]

You've been in an echo chamber. What you describe simply doesn't exist as a part of the Tea Party movement. Other than as clumsy provocations by progressives.

Of course, echo chambers work both ways...  And there's the rub.  Undoubtedly, there are some on the left who suppose everything Republicans speak is all echo-chamber nonsense.  Clearly, there are those on the right who say the same thing about all Democratic observations.  Unfortunately, most efforts to address this point ends up in the forming of ranks, the circling of wagons. 

I will say that my wife has an aunt here in the town where we live who is a TPer.  She goes to the meetings and is actively involved in the local/regional wing.  She is vehemently conservative.  She is also a kind, compassionate, generous person who is kind to animals and people alike.  I've heard her say some things about non-whites that could be interpreted as rather racial.  (I've heard liberal Democrats say things about non-whites and homosexuals, too, that could certainly be described as prejudiced and racist/sexist.)

  Reductionist thinking, however, does not get us very far, does it?  And both sides do it all too often.

[West of the Rockies]

To turn this thread on it's head... Which was the best administration ever, and why; last 50 years? Try to keep it non partisan...(Wishful thinking I know)

Well, I can say that there are aspects I admire of most of the administrations.  As someone who likes clean air and water, I think Nixon's part in establishing the EPA was great.  I'll take shit for this, but I think if we had stuck with Jimmy Carter's alternative energy efforts, we might well be selling solar panels and more (fusion?) to the world instead of buying lots of stuff from the Chinese.  I admire that GHWB dealt with Kuwait and did not get us involved in a protracted land war.  I think his speech writer David Frum ("a thousand points of light") is a very admirable person.

There... I am a lib, but I've offered some kind words that actually tip to the conservative side.  It is my hope to see a similar effort from others.  (Yeah, there I go again, playing the moralizing/pontificating asshole uncle.  It's a habit I am aware of....)

[West of the Rockies]

Everyone knows the Conservatives - from Reagan on - are all stupid, and the Libs - starting with Obama and his teleprompter - are all just so smart. 

Only the most intelligent among us realize the answer to every problem is always more government spending.  Only our best and brightest understand it's never wise to look back to see what the actual results of policy have been.

Well, I know you're not quoting Onan or YorkshirePud or me on this one, Paperboy.  Although I have seen the inverse of your observation put forth on this forum -- that all that is wrong is Democratic policy in nature. 

[Juan]

To turn this thread on it's head... Which was the best administration ever, and why; last 50 years? Try to keep it non partisan...(Wishful thinking I know)

Depends on what you mean by "best" - best at getting its agenda passed?  Best at making the daily lives of the most people better?

[onan]

Whatever the actuality, the Tea Party has done a poor job communicating its message. Blame anyone you want, if the message getting out is wrong, then get new PR.

[ItsOver]

After watching the politicians in D.C. over the decades and the dumbing-down of America, I'm starting to believe we really should be governed by benevolent philosophers.  The dilemma, though, is in the selection.  I do see justice in the current process, as far as the country receiving the government it deserves.

[Sardondi]

The noose tightens. IRS Chief Counsel, William Wilkins, Obama's political appointee and just named as a source of the plan to target the Tea Party groups for greater scrutiny, met with Obama two days before he announced the change in IRS policy which implemented the partisan scheme: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/embattled-irs-chief-counsel-met-with-obama-2-days-before-writing-new-targeting-criteria/

You'll recall Nixon's critics bled from the eyes (and many to this day) that the mere suggestion to use the IRS to punish political opponents was even discussed in his presence. It was enough to form the basis for an article of impeachment. I particularly recall the bipartisan nature of the investigations into presidential offenses in the Watergate days.

I would have thought the Democrats on Capitol Hill loved the law so much that they would be desperate to see if Obama had acted similarly. But instead they wish to ignore, obfuscate, delay, avoid. Hmm. I guess things are different. Maybe the scandals and offenses are simply too overwhelming. After all, Nixon's wrongdoing is dwarfed by the potential offenses of Obama. And yet not a Capitol Hill Democrat, to my knowledge, stands up to demand the truth about each of the four horrendous scandals facing Obama; which he, just like Nixon, is desperately trying to keep out of the public eye by stirring up discord on secondary issues. It's intellectually dishonest and it's shameful.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I would have thought the Democrats on Capitol Hill loved the law so much that they would be desperate to see if Obama had acted similarly. But instead they wish to ignore, obfuscate, delay, avoid. Hmm. I guess things are different. Maybe the scandals and offenses are simply too overwhelming.

Darrell Issa (R-CA) chairs Oversight and Government Reform.   [size=78%]http://oversight.house.gov/committee-members/[/size]
They haven't been able to get anything done.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Oh, baby, don't get me started. (Okay, too late, I've been started for the last three years, etc., I know, I know.) "What's scary to me is that I recall in the 60's the fear was that "one day America could be like this." Then by the 90's it was "We're starting to see some of these precise things." And now is, "It's actually started to become a part of the fabric of our daily lives; the only difference is that it's not yet fully implemented."

Such "incrementalism" can define how massive changes occur seemingly without notice. It is that "slippery slope" in which the move downhill is seen as impossible because the movement is just a millimeter here and a tad there, until suddenly friction and inertia is overwhelmed and it's a tumble to the bottom.

I fear the ship capsizing, in which the ballast and the cargo have been shifting almost imperceptibly. Early on someone might have noted a little difference in how things were when they were initially stowed away, but nobody is really alarmed. Or if they are, they have no rank or are considered cranks, drunks or too old to cut the mustard any more, so no one listens to them.

Until one day, there's this storm, and a big wave catches you square abeam. Not necessarily a freak wave, not a killer or a tsunami; but still a hard, big wave of the type that you need to have prepared for, and for which your cargo needs to be stowed low and broad with an immovable center of gravity.

Except yours isn't. Not anymore. Because over the voyage you've had these almost microscopic little shifts. And cargo loads are coming apart a bit, and not lashed tightly. Ballast is shifting to one side or the other and you're no longer perfectly center line . It doesn't even have to push you over all that far, to 35°, 45° or even 50°. Because if your center of gravity is off, if it has shifted, all it takes is a gentle shove. When the wave hits of course it's frightening at first, but you know from history and training that if you loaded you ballast how you were supposed to, and if you stowed your hold right, you can recover, because your ship is designed to take it. 

But it's not, because recovery assumes that your center of gravity is rock-solid, and, because of all those little movements and jerks and shifts and slides, it's no longer rock-solid. And so you capsize in seconds instead of slowly recovering.

We are the proverbial frogs in the pan.  Some have felt the water getting warmer for decades - and notice it's now starting to boil.  Others still think the water's fine and the chef is a terrific guy.



I know when I realized it was pretty much over.  When the great Ronald Reagan couldn't stop the runaway growth of government in the 80s.  When he said 'if not us, who?  If not now, when?'  And the growth of government continued unchecked.

At the time it was imperative we face down the Soviets, rebuild Carters wrecked military, and re-structure the economy - and do it without much cooperation from the D controlled House or Senate.  It's really too bad the bureaucracy wasn't re-organized and downsized at the same time.

[Sardondi]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

After months of doublespeak about how ultra-surgical drone strikes and the application of generous dollops of Smart Diplomacyâ,,¢ had left Al Qaeda a shriveled husk, the first returns come in. And - surprise! - things are not as promised. Oops. It turns out that the supposedly shriveled husk of Al Qaeda is able to stage a threat of an attack large enough and sufficiently viable for the United States of America to close 25 - that's two-dozen plus one - embassies in the Middle East and areas with a strong Muslim terrorist presence, with some of the closings permanent. But we really have nothing to worry about since the "core" of Al Qaeda is "greatly diminished". [urlhttp://thehill.com/video/administration/315575-white-house-core-of-al-qaeda-remains-greatly-diminished][/url]

What to believe? How can such a threat be after months of crowing that AQ was for all intents and purposes unable to do much of anything but hide. Ex-cept. With the Obama Administration's machiavellian penchant for lying, combined with its Keystone Kops clumsiness in all things but electioneering, can we really believe such a threat truly exists? Or is it really just a ham-handed attempt to "prove" to Americans - and their allies - that the voracious electronic communications interception programs run by the US government are both necessary and effective. That one might even for a moment consider such a possibility is powerful evidence of the Obama Administration's reputation for dishonesty as well as its oafishness and ineptitude.

My money is on a threat which might possibly, maybe, could be a tiny bit, uh, "improved". Or at least the response this time might be a little more extreme than in the past. But in the final analysis it hardly matters: because it means this Administration is either grossly incompetent, or willing to engage in incredibly cynical and manipulative behavior.

[bateman]

just a ham-handed attempt to "prove" to Americans - and their allies - that the voracious electronic communications interception programs run by the US government are both necessary and effective.

We have a winner.

[Yorkshire pud]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

After months of doublespeak about how ultra-surgical drone strikes and the application of generous dollops of Smart Diplomacyâ,,¢ had left Al Qaeda a shriveled husk, the first returns come in. And - surprise! - things are not as promised. Oops. It turns out that the supposedly shriveled husk of Al Qaeda is able to stage a threat of an attack large enough and sufficiently viable for the United States of America to close 25 - that's two-dozen plus one - embassies in the Middle East and areas with a strong Muslim terrorist presence, with some of the closings permanent. But we really have nothing to worry about since the "core" of Al Qaeda is "greatly diminished". [urlhttp://thehill.com/video/administration/315575-white-house-core-of-al-qaeda-remains-greatly-diminished][/url]

What to believe? How can such a threat be after months of crowing that AQ was for all intents and purposes unable to do much of anything but hide. Ex-cept. With the Obama Administration's machiavellian penchant for lying, combined with its Keystone Kops clumsiness in all things but electioneering, can we really believe such a threat truly exists? Or is it really just a ham-handed attempt to "prove" to Americans - and their allies - that the voracious electronic communications interception programs run by the US government are both necessary and effective. That one might even for a moment consider such a possibility is powerful evidence of the Obama Administration's reputation for dishonesty as well as its oafishness and ineptitude.

My money is on a threat which might possibly, maybe, could be a tiny bit, uh, "improved". Or at least the response this time might be a little more extreme than in the past. But in the final analysis it hardly matters: because it means this Administration is either grossly incompetent, or willing to engage in incredibly cynical and manipulative behavior.

The Arab world has a system of communication that cannot be tracked by anything electronic; I'm not sure that NATO has actually mentioned that though. It's a form of Chinese whispers, and covers financial transactions and is virtually untraceable. Now..that being the case (And I'm sure all the western intelligence agencies are aware of it even if they don't make it public), they have a very big hole in their intel gathering..massive.

Therefore it isn't really a surprise this current alert and the almost panic stations taken. They've been basically caught with their pants down, and it's obvious they wouldn't have known a thing about it at all if the top two Al Qaeda hadn't been lax and allegedly made an electronic communication. That would have happened no matter who was the PM in the UK or President in the US..I'm guessing but I would think the PR trotted out in the recent past that AQ was a dead duck was just that..a propaganda exercise. Having said that, you can't have a war on a philosophy and you don't need many to attack an embassy if you have enough intel and places to hide. AQ might be many things, but the ability to fight on their home ground is exemplary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23585923


This is particularly worrying...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23593126

[PB the Deplorable]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

After months of doublespeak about how ultra-surgical drone strikes and the application of generous dollops of Smart Diplomacyâ,,¢ had left Al Qaeda a shriveled husk, the first returns come in. And - surprise! - things are not as promised. Oops. It turns out that the supposedly shriveled husk of Al Qaeda is able to stage a threat of an attack large enough and sufficiently viable for the United States of America to close 25 - that's two-dozen plus one - embassies in the Middle East and areas with a strong Muslim terrorist presence, with some of the closings permanent...

When the French rolled up al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and their allies in Mali, they found NATO weapons including heavy artillery, which had originally been handed over to the Libyan rebels by Obama.  West Africa is flooded with Libyan weapons.

Since we've been arming the Syrian rebel - whose movement has been taken over by various thuggy terrorist groups, is it supposed to be a shock some of those weapons find their way to other nearby locations and are used in other al Qaeda type attacks on the West?

The Fast and Furious operation re-armed the Mexican drug cartels, and whatever was going on in Benghazi re-armed al-Qaeda.  Do any of our other enemies need weapons?  Call the White House.

[Yorkshire pud]

When the French rolled up al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and their allies in Mali, they found NATO weapons including heavy artillery, which had originally been handed over to the Libyan rebels by Obama.  West Africa is flooded with Libyan weapons.

Since we've been arming the Syrian rebel - whose movement has been taken over by various thuggy terrorist groups, is it supposed to be a shock some of those weapons find their way to other nearby locations and are used in other al Qaeda type attacks on the West?

The Fast and Furious operation re-armed the Mexican drug cartels, and whatever was going on in Benghazi re-armed al-Qaeda.  Do any of our other enemies need weapons?  Call the White House.

Not to mention the weapons, IED techniques and instruction on how to implement them long before Obama made an entrance. If you're dumping the current world ills and terrorism entirely on Obama's presidential tenure, you're either just being willfully ignorant or thick.

[PB the Deplorable]

Not to mention the weapons, IED techniques and instruction on how to implement them long before Obama made an entrance. If you're dumping the current world ills and terrorism entirely on Obama's presidential tenure, you're either just being willfully ignorant or thick.

I'm dumping the recent arms to the cartels and recent arms to al-Qaeda entirely on Obama, yes.

[PB the Deplorable]

Not to mention the weapons, IED techniques and instruction on how to implement them long before Obama made an entrance. If you're dumping the current world ills and terrorism entirely on Obama's presidential tenure, you're either just being willfully ignorant or thick.

You know, you aren't the only person I've run across that seems to think anything Obama does should be beyond criticism because someone somewhere in the past may have done something similar. 

I don't quite get that, except maybe there really is no other way of defending him at this point

[Yorkshire pud]

You know, you aren't the only person I've run across that seems to think anything Obama does should be beyond criticism because someone somewhere in the past may have done something similar. 

Not to mention the weapons, IED techniques and instruction on how to implement them long before Obama made an entrance. If you're dumping the current world ills and terrorism entirely on Obama's presidential tenure, you're either just being willfully ignorant or thick.

Show me where it says in the above that Obama is beyond criticism? You don't 'run across' anyone PB. You just believe well, whatever it is you need to believe t reinforce whatever it is you wish. Context, history, happenstance, and little things like facts don't steer your single minded and frankly uniformed bollox.

I don't quite get that, except maybe there really is no other way of defending him at this point

Then don't; but similarly don't think that other than the hard of thinking believe that Obama (or in fact any previous president up to whenever) is entirely responsible for the problems of now. I know you do, because to think otherwise would leave you open to being accused of critical thought; and that would never do.

[NowhereInTime]

You know, you aren't the only person I've run across that seems to think anything Obama does should be beyond criticism because someone somewhere in the past may have done something similar. 

I don't quite get that, except maybe there really is no other way of defending him at this point

Except for the fact that conservatives have been having their cake and eating it, too.  Either he isn't involved with Libya or he's too involved with Libya and Americans die.  Either he helps the Syrian "freedom fighters", which, apparently the CIA was trying to do in Benghazi, or he abandons the "freedom fighters", as John McCain accuses him of doing.  McCain wanted no part of Libya, which, aside from an apparent CIA clusterfudd in Benghazi has gone fairly well, but wants all in on Syria which is an absolute madhouse.  You want us involved all over the world to protect our "interests" but get your knickers in a bunch when there is collateral damage.
Bonus:  I AM criticizing Obama for involvement in Syria.  We have no "interests" (read:OIL) there and we cannot establish a clear "side" to support.  There doesn't seem to be anyone interested in democracy; either Allouite state or Sharia Law.  Not our fight. GET OUT.

[West of the Rockies]

Discussing politics is getting more and more tiresome to me.  People, for the most part, are unwilling or unable to consider "the other guy's perspective". 

Let me give you just a tiny case in point...  GWB was routinely scorned as "the worst president ever" in his last year or so in office by liberals all over.  (At least, that is my probably-flawed memory of things.)  On DAY 1 of his administration, I read a post by a conservative "thinker" who said:  Barrack Obama:  Worst.  President.  Ever.

On day one....

Okay, clearly, he/she had gotten pissed off reading GWB:  Worst.  President.  Ever. 

I get that. 

But it also demonstrates a hermetically mind.  Do liberals have such minds?  Undoubtedly, some do.

Anyway, no matter what BHO does, he will be wrong in the minds of some people.  Like you said, Nowhere, either he didn't move fast enough/moved too fast. 

Obama gave the greenlight for Seal Team 6 to whack Bin Laden.  Obama did not kill Osama.  But he DID have a part to play in that evil man's demise.  Some people want to deny Obama and credit whatsoever for the kill.  And yet, when GWB shows up dressed in a flight suit in front of a Mission Accomplished banner (like he had anything to do with the military action), no one on the right raised any fuss.

It's the same always and always.  Our guy -- good.  Your guy -- bad.

I am certain that the conservative voices on this forum can provide similar examples of GWB not getting credit for something he did or being faulted for one thing or another.  Politics is a dirty game and a filthy business.  And trying to change each other's minds on this forum is probably a fool's errand.

It is kinda fun though, don't you think?

[onan]

It is kinda fun though, don't you think?

I did at one time. But all I get is annoyed or angry. I don't need it. My irritation rubs off on other things I do... it isn't worth it.