There is a difference between a "flat spin" and a "stall"
Flat spin:
stall:
Both are fatal to the novice operator....such as a "community organizer.
Posted on 11/08/2014 1:09:39 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
As his presidency once again teeters on the brink, it's time to look seriously at how it became undone.
For reasons largely beyond his control, Barack Obama has experienced more adversity and upheaval during his five-plus years as president than most of his predecessors. (In fact, when it comes to governing during crisis, you could argue that only a few others, like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, had it worse.) Still, even though the president has already had more than his fair share of bad weeks, the past seven days or so have to rank among the administration’s very worst.
Obviously there was his party’s failure during Tuesday’s elections, which handed full control of Congress (and many state governments) to the GOP. That was awful enough to inspire the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne to describe 2014 as even worse for Dems than the disaster of 2010. But there was also the news that the conservative Supreme Court would take a crack at further weakening the Affordable Care Act by striking down its subsidies while also upholding its mandate, which would leave millions of Americans forced to buy insurance without the subsidies needed to make the law work. Put these two things together, and you see an Obama legacy now very much in doubt.
Judging by his post-election press conference on Wednesday, the wave of bad news hasn’t really dampened the president’s spirits. But some of his biggest supporters aren’t nearly as confident that, in the end, everything will work out. For example, Andrew Sullivan, who has long been one of Obama’s most loyal defenders, was utterly baffled by the outcome on Tuesday. In his election-recap post (straightforwardly titled “Where did Obama go wrong?”) Sullivan tries to figure out how, exactly, the man who was so beloved in 2009 had so dramatically lost the public’s favor. He grants that Obama isn’t always the best at messaging and pure politics, but insists that there is no “substantive reason why Obama has lost altitude.”
Ultimately, Sullivan’s piece doesn’t answer the question, opting instead to explain why various decisions the president made were the “least worst” possible. He cites globalization, Islamic extremism, ideological polarization and the increasingly extreme GOP as structural forces keeping Obama from doing much more than he has already. “[Obama] never promised us perfection,” Sullivan writes, “merely endurance and persistence in substantively changing the nation and the world for the better.” Within the political framework of the present moment, Sullivan basically argues, Obama’s accomplished much of what one could realistically expect.
That may well be true. But if Sullivan and his ilk want to understand where the president went wrong, I’d suggest they examine whether, in the present circumstances, Obama’s simply playing the hand he was dealt was enough. For a self-described conservative like Sullivan, who rejects experimentation and wants progress to be orderly and incremental, Obama’s penchant for working from within the system rather than trying to disrupt it is a real plus. A chief question of his presidency, however, is whether this temperamental conservatism was the wrong fit for the current era, when major reforms are so desperately needed.
Perhaps tellingly, this question has hounded left-of-center observers of the president from the beginning. Candidate Obama spoke a lot about “change”; and as an individual he was certainly different from the presidential aspirants that came before. He talked a good game about wanting a “transformational” presidency, too. Being a Bill Clinton-like manager of the status quo, he said, would not be enough. Yet the Columbia- and Harvard-educated Obama was hardly an outsider. He was a striver, a climber, a product of that status quo. He was someone who learned the rules of the game, followed them, and then won. Would he really want to shake things up?
As early as the summer of 2009, Kevin Baker felt ready to answer that question, writing in Harper’s that Obama was too comfortable with the world as it was to push through the dramatic reforms the moment required. Baker even went so far as to compare Obama to Herbert Hoover, a brilliant man whose presidency was a historic failure because, argued Baker, he was unable to recognize the world he’d grown up and prospered in was gone. In retrospect, the comparison to Hoover still feels strained — even if Obama leaves behind him a GOP Congress and a failed health care bill, he averted economic armageddon, which was more than the 31st president could say. But at least right now, Baker’s prediction that Obama “will fail, because he will be unable… to seize the radical moment at hand” doesn’t sound so dumb.
Baker may have reached his conclusions years ago, but I’m still not ready to declare the Obama presidency a failure. If the Affordable Care Act once again survives the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, that alone will be enough to earn the administration a passing grade. But if the bill is sabotaged by the Court, it will be due in part to Obama’s refusal to, as Baker put it, “seize the radical moment at hand.” Rather than recognize how ideological and partisan realignment and polarization had effectively changed the rules of the Senate, Obama let Senate Democrats waste months waiting in vain for Republican senators to climb aboard. So by the time Scott Brown ended the Dems’ filibuster-proof super-majority, the bill still wasn’t complete.
The short version of what happened next is that Dems in the House passed the unfinished Senate bill, which just so happened to include a poorly written section that Republicans — and now perhaps the Supreme Court — have seized on to destroy the law and make it function as its authors never intended. To be clear, the main villains throughout this potential tragedy are conservatives and Republicans. But a criticism one can fairly level at the president is that he, unlike his counterparts on the right, never recognized and adjusted to the new paradigm. In this way, as well as in many others, he continued to do things as they’d always been done. It wasn’t until the summer of 2011, when Republicans, playing by the new rules, used debt-ceiling brinksmanship to nearly destroy the global economy that Obama finally woke up.
At this point, there is no question that President Obama will fall short of initial expectations. But more than the failure to pass any one particular bill, the disappointment stems from the president’s dogged insistence on being a reformer during a radical era. His inability to see the ground shifting beneath him has much to do with his latest terrible week. I fear that many more like it are soon to come.
IF ONLY Democrats had added that much needed clause to the healthcare law:
“All opposition to the president are to be immediately interned in labor camps.”
Sissy Obozo just didn’t seize the moment
Salon is saying the rats lost because their agenda wasn’t radical enough. Amazingly it appears that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are going to take this advice and double down on leftist schemes. This could get interesting if played right by the pubs.
Gag me with a pitch-fork.
This president hasn't had it so bad. It is judgment that has been so bad.
his judgement...
Obama “woke up” the global economy? Somehow I missed that.
Actually, I think this attitude works to the advantage of the Right.
If the Left/Obama makes conciliatory moves to work with the GOP, citizen’s anger will subside, and the Left can ease their way back into the country’s good graces...which we do not want to happen. I mean, face it, the Sheeple have short memories.
If the Left continues to demand the crap we’ve had to put up with over the last 6 years, the general population will (hopefully) continue the revolt and kick even more democrats out in 2016.
There is a difference between a "flat spin" and a "stall"
Flat spin:
stall:
Both are fatal to the novice operator....such as a "community organizer.
Even Obama is a victim of this wicked, racist nation. Who would elect America’s first black President only to set him up for failure?
Whitey, that’s who!
LOL! Great post/pic in a thread of great posts/pics.
FUBO…POSOTUS
Yes, he failed to declare that he is the “christ” and set up his temple and demand everyone worship him under pain of death. Other than that, he did everything right.
>>In fact, when it comes to governing during crisis, you could argue that only a few others, like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, had it worse.)<<
Reagan had is a LOT worse than obozo. So did W. And what a lovely and easy situation Truman “inherited.”
2007-2008 was a cyclical economic downturn resulting from democrat policies. All ANY president had to do was remove those policies, stand back, and allow the Market to right itself.
Yeah:)
The rats pushed an empty suit
It was the perception that the radical moment was being seized that led to the week’s election results.
Not expecting the libs to understand this.”
A lot of folks apparently came to the realization that they no longer wanted transformation into a third-world hell hole. They became disillusioned about the prospect of giving up so-called American exceptionalism and instead living in a squalid hut with dirty water and disease-ridden fellow inhabitants.
Why post this nonsense from Salon??
Obuma is a fake who is propped by the 50 IQ apes in the propaganda press. Obuma has no mandate nor do normal people like him because the majority of people never voted for Buckwheat. He won election via massive voter fraud carried out by the Nazis on Soros’ payroll.
End of story.
That’s funny! After reading the comments, it seems they fired the shotgun at the blame map and hit every possible explanation, then made up some extras. When I saw someone call 0 ‘a white-skinned Bush’ I just SMPL. Then had a healthy laugh at all the liberal tears and flusterated convolutions, never seen anything like it! If we’d had today’s internet in 1994, would it have read like this week’s, I wonder?
Ultimately, Sullivan’s piece doesn’t answer the question, opting instead to explain why various decisions the president made were the “least worst” possible. He cites globalization, Islamic extremism, ideological polarization and the increasingly extreme GOP as structural forces keeping Obama from doing much more than he has already.
This is called a failure to lead. It is NOT bad luck!
Forgot—they’re blaming everything but the true problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.