Monday, January 21, 2013

Obama's Scorecard So Far

Paul Krugman weighs in on what the president has accomplished so far, what goals he's failed to achieve and what lies ahead for the country during the next four years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/opinion/krugman-the-big-deal.html?hp&_r=0

20 comments:

clif said...

President's greatest accomplishment is getting elected twice as a left of center politician making no bones about it.

He has destroyed the memes of the right with out having to compromise much, and has congressional republicans loudly proclaiming lots them voting with their tails between their legs and eating crow,

Oh yes and he fulfilled Dr Kings dream of being chosen for the content of his character, not the color of his skin, by beating Willard, who's character was found wanting even by quite a few republicans as they held their noses and voted for him.

T. Paine said...

Krugman doing an analysis of Obama is akin to the Kansas City Chief's critiquing the Cleveland Browns for their football prowess.

(Or perhaps the equivalent of Cliff vouching for Obama's "character". )

clif said...

Yo T boy it was the voters who vouched for his character .....................

clif said...

Deal with it.

jim marquis said...

Since we're using football analogies...the Dems have won the presidential election the last two times. Isn't it possible the GOP is using an outdated playbook?

clif said...

Demographically yes,

philosophically have been for years,

politically it is suicide for the party to try to double down on the stupid they used to win elections by;

Which is why they are trying to change the rules with their despicable efforts to block Americans from exercising their constitutional right to vote,

Now they want to change how the actual votes count because with the same old plan and same old rules they just keep losing.

T. Paine said...

It's easy to keep losing when there aren't a majority of adults left in America. All the progressives have to do is promise free stuff and the kids will vote for them. "Want free candy? Vote for me!"

Of course, this is unsustainable and if the adults don't take charge soon, the house will be burnt down around us.

But you can keep touting your "victory" if you wish. And by the way, the voters were obviously not concerned about Obama's disqualifying character or he would never have been elected the first time around.

It is hard to fathom, but I think Hillary was more scrupulous and would have made a better president than Obama.

jim marquis said...

So, TP, are you saying you consider anybody who's not a straight white male a "kid"?

Because (as you know)he won the majority of women, blacks, Asians, Latinos and gays. Are you saying all these people voted for him simply because they wanted free stuff?

T. Paine said...

Jim, no, I probably should clarify. Not everybody that voted for Obama was necessarily a selfish kid or "adult" that wanted free stuff.

I am sure that some were low information voters or hyper-partisan progressive ideologues.

clif said...

hyper-partisan regressive ideologues

The definition of the extremist far right gun fetishists.

jim marquis said...

I doubt you think I'm a low information voter. So that only leaves hyper-partisan progressive ideologue...I kind of like the sound that!

T. Paine said...

Yes Jim, I would definitely characterize you as a hyper-partisan ideologue.

The difference is not that you are a low information voter, but are rather a mis-information voter as such a progressive ideologue, my friend.

clif said...

a mis-information voter

The standing definition of the teatard movement.

Fed by fox news and hate right wing radio, which uses much dis-information to push the far right agenda.

T. Paine said...

Cliff, I think Free really is right about you. Your debating skills are the equivalent of, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Do you have any facts or information to back up ANY of your erroneous assertions or do you simply want to call names, hold your breath and pout, or scream "LIAR!"?

clif said...

When you right wing clowns lie, I call you on it.

clif said...

Yes T-boy, seven different studies have shown fox news people are the most mis informed people in the country;

Fox News Viewers are the Most Misinformed: A Seventh Study Arrives to Prove It — and Vindicate Jon Stewart!

This study shows people get dumber when they watch fox news.

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study

Any body who buys the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones or World Nut Daily and his birfer bullshit are just plain dumb.

PS I don't give a damn what either of you two wing nut clowns think.

Snave said...

TP, I don't consider myself low-information. I consider information from a variety of sources including ones from both sides of the political fence. I also don't believe I am a hyper-partisan progressive idealogue; that isn't my style. I look to see if what the person says and does are things that feel correct to me. I don't like the left an awful lot sometimes, but I really don't like right wing politics... the more intense that gets, the more it drives me leftward.

If you want to call me a low-information voter or hyper-partisan idealogue, a term which you apparently are willing to use toward those who disagree with you or vote differently than you do, then fine. I suppose labeling someone who votes for the other guy that way can be explained by labeling the other guy a "moral relativist", but what's right to me may not be right to you, and in matters such as politics, the term "moral relitivism" is pretty high up on the "Bull-Shit-O-Meter". I say that because the term is a religious term, and I don't believe America ought to be mixing religion with politics. Again, that's my opinion, which is relative. 8-)

Part of what makes this such a great country, whether you like it or not, is that we can feel free to express these things. And what the other guy says, even if we disagree with it, is not always immoral just because it doesn't fit in with our views. We can't just "scroll down" to ignore things that affect us personally, but I think we can always agree to disagree without going lower. It's worth a try, anyway.

Snave said...

Also TP, I wouldn't worry about unions so much. If there is any truth to this story (which I believe there is), give it another ten years and I bet we'll see it drop from one out of 10 Americans being union members to more like 1 out of 20. Your side has gained the upper hand on this one, so I wouldn't spend a lot of energy worrying about unions. I'm taking a longer-range view of the situation, looking at trends. If people choose to not look past today or tomorrow, I suppose that's different.

unions

free0352 said...

Clif reminds me if- as most liberals remind me of one character or another from Animal Farm. Many are like the sheep from Animal Farm. In the book, different animal species represented different kinds of people in a socialist state. The sheep would bleat "Four legs good, two legs bad!" to drown out the opposing arguements of Napoleon, the socialist dictator of animal farm.

In Obama land Cliff is a Sheep.

clif said...

In Obama land Cliff is a Sheep.

With over 14 years federal military service. The US army would dispute your delusional claims, freebee.

But keep telling yerself what ever helps ya feel better about yerself, while you fondle and stroke yer guns freebee.