Obama Isn't Powerless

Now is the hour of liberal discontent with the Obama presidency.

Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

If our fashion-conscious president still finds the time to read the lad-mags, December's GQ had to hurt.

Obama made the magazine's list of "The 25 Least Influential People Alive," along with Tiger Woods's ex-caddie, the prosecutor who couldn't convict Casey Anthony, and MTV tart Tila Tequila.

Obama "should be the most transformational figure of the century," GQ carped, "Instead, he wields all the power of a substitute teacher at night school."

Sure, the piece was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there's real venom behind the smirk. Now is the hour of liberal discontent with the Obama presidency.

The "thrill up my leg" is gone for MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Obama has "the worst kind of a notion of the presidency," the Hardball host railed recently: "Why are we in this fight with him? Just tell us, commander, give us our orders and tell us where we're going, give us the mission."

Sigh. Where to begin? It's absurd to complain that Obama - who can launch wars without congressional approval and assassinate American citizens via drone strike, a man who sits atop an executive branch of 2.1 million civilian employees claiming authority over everything from how much salt we ingest to what sort of light bulbs we're permitted to use - is powerless.

And it's utterly perverse for anyone - let alone a journalist - to address a politician as "commander" and beg him for marching orders.

Obama's current difficulties were entirely predictable, however. It isn't just that he's been a terrible president, it's that no earthly figure could deliver the miracles he promised: among other things, "a complete transformation of the economy, "care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless," to "end the age of oil in our time," begin to heal the very planet and, perhaps most unrealistically, "fundamentally change the way Washington works."

Like they say, though, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Since Obama has stoked irrational public expectations for presidential salvation in virtually every public policy area, it's hard to feel sorry for him.

Yet some folks manage the feat. That's apparent from an article called, "The Carterization of Barack Obama" in the new issue of Esquire. (Some guys peruse the lad-mags for the racy pictures; I read them for the articles).

In it, Charles P. Pierce argues that: "The problem with redemptive presidents is that, invariably, they call upon the country to be as good and decent a place as they described when they were running. They ask for sacrifice, for putting " aside party for the national good."

Alas, "They then discover that the country isn't as good or decent as they had been saying it was .... The redemptive president is caught then," Pierce said.

Obama's problems are all our fault, you see. If only we were good enough to deserve him!

Actually, the problem with "redemptive presidents" is that when they fail to deliver national redemption, they invariably demand more power for the task. Thus, it's not surprising that Obama is now invoking Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" as part of his re-election strategy.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The office has a lot of power.

    The man is weak.

    When he is no longer President, Obama will still be a weak man, and the Presidency will still be a powerful office.

  • ||

    Yeppers. He's amazingly weak and uninfluential despite the enormous power of his office and of his government.

  • ||

    Dunno the POTUS is really that powerfull.

    He's kinda like the star on top of the Christmas tree: Bright and shiny with lots of heat, but not really all that useful.

  • Ron Paultard||

    Just wait until I fuck it all up.

  • ||

    Oh NO! God forbid the president stop implementation raids on local marijuana dispensaries in california! What kind of hellish nightmare do you want us to live in.

  • The Derider||

    One where Israel nukes Iran, or the other way around.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Yes.

    The only country ever to nuke cities (after continually provoking the fuck out of Japan) without widely acknowledging why it was wrong, and the most aggressive and invasive, war-hungry nation in modern times should tell other countries that starting wars and nuking cities is wrong.

    I can see now why America is the right country to teach a morality lesson.

  • ||

    Bullshit. Liberals like myself support Obama - its the shitty little progressives who don't.

    +900 basis point improvement in GDP
    +450 on the S&P 500 Index - best ever for any President
    32 consecutive months of private sector job growth
    inflation nearly dead at 2% CPI
    interest rates near lows at 4%
    largest US monthly exports ever at $180 billion in October
    taxes at lows in terms of % GDP
    earnings of S&P 500 best ever at $102
    Banks are back to safe balance sheets
    stopped the Bush deficit at $1.3 trillion and will lower it

  • Barack Obama||

    Don't worry, I'm working as hard as I can to undo all of this.

  • wareagle||

    --unemployment at or above 9% virtually his entire term
    --800-bil squandered on a useless stimulus
    --Obamacare, already affecting both the cost of health care and hiring
    --interest rates artificially low to the point that banks make more money investing their money than lending it
    --low tax-to-GDP because of low economic growth
    --added 4T (and counting) to the debt
    --2 million jobs LOST since his coronation
    --most food stamp recipients in history

    you keep tossing up your "achievements" but ask why Obama's campaign is centered on attacking the opposition rather than promoting what he's done.

  • ||

    2 million jobs lost were all in q1 2009 - we were in the depth of a depression then.

    We will have a record rebound 2012-2016 no matter who the President is.

    The table is set - low interest rates, inflation dead, high supply of capital assets and labor, etc.

    Already, drill rigs have tripled - the US is set to be the #1 producer of crude oil.

  • Internet Bankz||

    No we wont, we really wont

  • White Primitard||

    2 million jobs lost were all in q1 2009 - we were in the depth of a depression then.

    The employment to population ratio hasn't even begun to rebound to 2003 recession levels. The depression is still going on because whatever "job growth" is occurring isn't keeping pace with population growth.

    We will have a record rebound 2012-2016 no matter who the President is.

    In what industries, pray tell? The housing bubble was the last bullet in the gun of the post-Nixon credit expansion. Now that debt either needs to be paid off or defaulted upon, especially with healthcare costs going up at a 7% clip every year.

  • ||

    Well, at least you pose serious issues unlike the dipshit peanut gallery.

    I can't answer to the 04-06 housing bubble or the ongoing 15 year explosion in health costs.

    But they predate Obama by many years.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Well, at least you pose serious issues unlike the dipshit peanut gallery.

    Translation: "USING GOVERNMENT DATA TO SHOW WHAT A MORON I AM IS NOT SERIOUS A BLOO BLOO BLOO!"

    I can't answer to the 04-06 housing bubble or the ongoing 15 year explosion in health costs.

    But they predate Obama by many years.

    Whether they predate Obama is completely irrelevant.

    You're arguing that we are going to have a record rebound with no actual evidence of what industries are going to employ many of the people who lost their jobs in the depression, IN ADDITION TO all of the newly employable population. Both the housing bubble and dotcom bubble were built on reckless credit expansion.

    You're acting as if a debt-to-GDP ratio of roughly 350% across all sectors of the economy doesn't even matter anymore, nor the fact that we are executing 10% in deficit spending to get a 1-2% growth rate in GDP, despite the fact that it is these very things which are preventing a real, actual recovery. Do you honestly think that game can be played forever?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Already, drill rigs have tripled

    Don't worry, the administration is hard at work to put a stop to that.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The GDP calculation includes government spending.

    Which is why GDP is a bogus measure of economic prosperity.

    Government spending is nothing more than forced transfer payments from one private party to another.

    And it is, of course, literally physically impossible for transfer payments to ever net to anything greater than zero.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "+450 on the S&P 500 Index - best ever for any President"

    The president didn't create it.

  • ||

    Bullshit. SCAP fixed the bank balance sheets.

    In 2008 investors were terrified of massive TBTF failure.

    Citi was $1 a share in q1 2009. Only Bush/Paulson intervention saved them and Obama SCAP made them thrive.

  • k2000k||

    Well I guess that is true, one thing you know about crony capitalism is that you can always just sluece them enough cash until they appear to be solvent and profitable.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Bullshit. SCAP fixed the bank balance sheets."

    Bullshit is indeed the correct term for every word you utter.

    Obama had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any increase in financial markets in any way.

    And you aren't the least bit capable of proving the case is otherwise

  • ||

    Wrong again!

    "We want to retain a strong sense of private capital fulfilling the core investment needs of this country," Obama said (in rejecting GOP overtures to bank nationalization)

    March 2009 - the depth of the Bush Depression --

    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Econo.....t6NBvI8eKQ

    Obama was MORE private capital than the GOP!

    Idiots!

  • Chupacabra||

    "stopped the Bush deficit at $1.3 trillion and will lower it"

    Pure gold, shrike. Even for a retard like you.

  • ||

    The deficit is headed down - maybe due only to sequestering - maybe due to expiration of Bush tax cuts - but it is headed down no matter who gets credit.

  • k2000k||

    No credit therewhatsoever for that claim. You cannot reasonably claim to say the deficit is down when Obama increased the overall deficit by a trillion a year. Guess what, you cut spending next year by 100 billion and you still have a net 900 billion increase to the overal deficit.

  • ||

    you're a liar.

    the annual deficit was $1.3 trillion when Obama was inaugurated. Its been posted by REASON, Cato, and Politifact.

    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....istration/

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "stopped the Bush deficit at $1.3 trillion and will lower it"

    the annual deficit was $1.3 trillion when Obama was inaugurated. Its been posted by REASON, Cato, and Politifact.

    The deficit in Obama's first year in office was $1.7 trillion.

    The deficit in Obama's second year was...$1.7 trillion

    Start here and educate yourself:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...../pd/pd.htm

  • ||

    Red Rocks blah--

    You fail. Public debt is an altogether different animal than DEFICIT.

    Even in the best of times with surplus annual debt must increase. I will explain this if you ask nicely.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    We're talking DEFICITS, asshole!

    So am I, asshole!

    Public Debt Outstanding
    01/20/2009
    10,626,877,048,913.08

    1/20/2010
    12,327,380,804,696.82

    Deficit: $1.7 trillion

    1/20/2010
    12,327,380,804,696.82

    1/20/2011
    14,056,313,474,932.58

    Total deficit: $1.7 trillion

    You fail. Public debt is an altogether different animal than DEFICIT.

    Wrong, dipshit, YOU fail. The annual DEFICIT adds to the DEBT.

    That's why it's called Historical Debt Outstanding, you moron. You must think that when you spend more on your credit cards than you take in total income, it doesn't add to the total overall debt you're already carrying. The banks must love you to pieces.

    Let's revisit what you said above, shall we?

    "stopped the Bush deficit at $1.3 trillion and will lower it"

    The Treasury's own data tables show that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Show me in the Debt to the Penny tables, which allows you to determine how much of a deficit was accrued through basic fucking math, how Obama halted the deficit at $1.3 trillion.

    Then when you fail at that, come back with another spittle-flecked, fact-free post of irrelevancy.

  • ||

    Easy example on your stupidity.

    Bushy-Boy never BUDGETED the Iraq disaster - so it never contributed to the deficit. But it did add nearly $2 trillion to DEBT ($1 trillion accrued).

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Easy example on your stupidity.

    Bushy-Boy never BUDGETED the Iraq disaster - so it never contributed to the deficit. But it did add nearly $2 trillion to DEBT ($1 trillion accrued).

    The debt to the penny charts take ALL spending into account, you idiot, not what the administration submits for the budget. Try again.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Bushy-Boy never BUDGETED the Iraq disaster - so it never contributed to the deficit.

    Really, I had to highlight this again, because this argument is just too sad--somehow, shrike is actually saying that because Bush didn't budget for Iraq, the spending NEVER added to the final deficit at the end of either the calendar or fiscal year. As if what an administration promises they'll spend is the deficit and what they actually spend is something completely different. Really, you can't get anymore ignorant than that.

    For some inexplicable reason, he thinks that anything a President doesn't budget for doesn't add to the final deficit when the total spending is tallied, even though the annual DEFICIT is what causes the DEBT to grow.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Even in the best of times with surplus annual debt must increase. I will explain this if you ask nicely.

    Fuckin LOL.

    06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
    06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
    06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62

    06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
    06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
    06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
    06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
    06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....histo4.htm

  • ||

    Cato - Don't blame Obama for massive Bush deficits:

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org.....9-deficit/

  • ||

    you want Reason too, you idiotic Bushpig?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    you want Reason too, you idiotic Bushpig?

    I just gave you the Treasury's figures, you worthless tumor.

  • wareagle||

    let's see - when Obama came in, the debt was roughly 10 trillion. Now, it's approaching 15 trillion and, as you may recall, the debt ceiling is poised for it to go higher. Obama's "budget" was laughed out of the Senate 97-0. Speaking of the Senate, been 3 years since it proposed a spending plan. What's with Dems and budgets? And, if the annual deficit was 1.3T when Obama came in and it has since gone up, tough to make the case of his lowering it.

  • ||

    We're talking DEFICITS, asshole!

    Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit and $1.3 X 3 = $4.9 trillion in debt.

    YES - Obama failed in not cutting into the Bushpig's deficits. We can agree on that.

  • ||

    $3.9 trillion - just realized my error in adding up the Bush deficits.....

  • Brother Grimm||

    Someday I really want to see this kind of logic used in a trial.

    Judge: "You are accused of stealing a used car. How do you plead?"

    Shrike: "Well, maybe I did..... but Bob over there stole a car, too!"

    Judge: "Really?! You're free to go."

  • Jordan||

    And U6 is still 16%. But your piece of shit bankster friends are doing fine! No surprise that you love the biggest crony capitalist in the history of the country.

  • ||

    Yeah - Obama fined Goldman $550 million - idiot.

    How did their puny employee donations work out?

    You homeboys are no challenge anymore. I think I will go away again.

  • Jordan||

    That's a pittance compared to the handouts he's given to his bankster and corporate cronies.

  • ||

    What?

    TARP was Bush, you idiot.

    The Fed is autonomous and is the lender of last resort since 1913.

    Obama is COLLECTING, dipshit.

  • Jordan||

    TARP was Bush, you idiot.

    And? You think that has been the only handout to Wall Street these past 4 years? And guess which way Obusha voted on it.

    The Fed is autonomous and is the lender of last resort since 1913.

    You'll swallow anything your government masters tell you.

  • ||

    yeah - TARP was the only Congressional led President approved "bailout" program.

  • cynical||

    shrike, you ignorant slut, TARP was a law. Laws are drafted by Congress, and then passed by Congress, and the president can either intervene or fail to do so. Bush sure as shit didn't help, but given that Senators McCain, Kerry, Clinton, and Obama all voted in favor, that was a pan-Establishment shafting. The only group in Congress to oppose it was House Republicans.

  • Jordan||

    -Asserted the right to assassinate American citizens
    -Renewed the Patriot Act
    -Passed a bill forcing everyone to purchase health insurance
    -Threatened to veto National Defense Authorization Act not because its a horrendous assault on civil liberties, but because it gives Congress to much oversight on executive action.

  • Mitch||

    I think you have something on your cheek there.

  • Realist||

    Stupidity reduces ones power.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Obama is weak?

    He seems to be doing a pretty good job fucking the country up even more than Bush did.

    The only reason he seems weak to some is because they stupidly believe the consequences of his policies would actually be GOOD, or that he intended them to be different from what they are.

  • ||

    "Why are we in this fight with him? Just tell us, commander, give us our orders and tell us where we're going, give us the mission."

    And Fox is the ONLY channel with any bias. Right Tony? Right?

  • ||

    MSNBC isn't a secret.

  • wareagle||

    neither is Fox, yet the left pretends that only Ailes puts on a product that has a tilt.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Is Matthews merely a feckless Obama sycophant or a more generally pusillanimous power fetishist?

  • John Galt||

    Are libertards merely feckless city-Statist sycophants or a more generally pusillanimous KOCHsucker power fetishists?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Is Matthews merely a feckless Obama sycophant or a more generally pusillanimous power fetishist?

    Yes.

  • Mitch||

    And he's a douchbag too

  • Realist||

    Yes.

  • Ice Nine||

    The author acknowledges that the GQ piece was "somewhat" tongue-in-cheek and then declares that it is absurd for GQ to call this POTUS weak. I think this was a somewhat absurd article.

  • NotSure||

    Your reading comprehension skills probably match your IQ - very low.

  • WWNGD?||

    According to the Weekly Standard, the "pill would move out from behind pharmacists’ counters, eliminating the requirement that women produce a prescription or prove that they are at least 17 years old to get it without a doctor’s order", yet that wacky weed must still be purchased in back alleys.

  • WWNGD?||

    I screwed that post up. I wanted to add a comment or two and a link. A comment about 0bama being weak, and a link to the article.

  • wareagle||

    Obama is not powerless; in fact, he is quite purposeful in using his power:
    --do you think it is coincidence that Mubarak and Qaddafi will be replaced by Islamic regimes hostile to the US? Not knowing this would happen makes the administration incompetent; knowing makes it malevolent.
    --unemployment has climbed since 1/20/09 with NO sign of improvement. Obama? Delays the TransCanada deal, nixes any new domestic energy production, uses the payroll tax as a political cudgel, and keeps adding to the debt. Not a coincidence.
    --continues raking in Wall St cash, knowing his blowjob brigade in the MSM will not say a thing about it.
    --puts a piece, or has his staff put a piece in the NY Times, basically telling the working class to go to hell, that he is more interested in the looter class and guilty whites in academia who happen to be on the public payroll.

    He has plenty of power and is choosing to use it for bad outcomes.

  • J_L_B||

    --do you think it is coincidence that Mubarak and Qaddafi will be replaced by Islamic regimes hostile to the US?

    Beyond Obama, this is a damned if you do/don't scenario. The former guys were not sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. Better the devil I know?

  • wareagle||

    Better the devil I know?
    --------------------------
    exactly. The flaws of the deposed may well pale in comparison to their successors. I refuse to believe the administration had no clue what would follow. If I am wrong, incompetence has been raised to an Olympian level.

  • ||

    Are you trying to intimate that the resulting Islamic governments are not exactly what the Muslim president wanted? Pshaw!

  • wareagle||

    quite the contrary; he knew what would happen. To believe otherwise would require believing gross incompetence on his part. He's not stupid, just evil.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You've got it backwards.

    Never assign malevolence when stupidity is a valid option.

    He's a true believer in government being good if it's run by The Right People™.

    He's simply stupid.

  • wareagle||

    I vote malevolence because the stupidity option requires a level of incompetence that should not even be possible. This is on purpose. You cannot enact tranformational change if things are going well.

  • Realist||

    He is a malevolent idiot.

  • Uncle Joe||

    "Never assign malevolence when stupidity is a valid option."

    We're dealing with high educated people, and the kind of people that are drawn to the greatest centers of power and influence and money, of the most powerful nation on Earth.

    Your axiom does not apply to politicians at that level. Malevolence is much more to be expected than stupidity.

    Stupidity at THAT level is virtually impossible to accept. Malevolence at that level is actually to be expected.

  • Warmonger Libertard||

    I like bringing a little Free Republic tough love to the pot smoking pussies.

  • yomada||

    --do you think it is coincidence that Mubarak and Qaddafi will be replaced by Islamic regimes hostile to the US? Not knowing this would happen makes the administration incompetent; knowing makes it malevolent.

    Be fair. Obama doesn't care about foreign policy. He only cares about destroying the U.S. and maybe the possibility of making himself dictator for life.

  • chris||

    A Drudge headline:

    Obama Considers Morning-After Pill on Supermarket Shelves...

    That's great, but what I really want to purchase without a prescription is the cold medicine I could get off the shelf a decade ago.

    Another Drudge headline:

    SHOCK: Woman denied food stamps kills self, shoots children...

    How long will it take MSNBC or the MSM for that matter to blame it on austerity? Thirty seconds ago?

  • WWNGD?||

    I forgot about showing ID to buy cold medicine. (see my post above)

  • ||

    So how are the poor minorities supposed to buy cold medicine if they don't have ID's? Big Pharma is so fucking racist.

  • cynical||

    You mean the DEA/FDA.

  • ||

    GQ is now the church bell that tolls the "hour of liberal discontent with the Obama presidency." Cherry Picking 101.

  • ||

    Obama Isn't Powerless

    No but he is a crook, a liar, and a Maxist dirt bag

  • ||

    He is also a racist affirmative action thug.

  • ||

    Oh yea I forgot about his "other" qualities ....

  • The Derider||

    You realize calling him an "affirmative action thug" makes YOU the racist, right?

  • Warty||

    PWND

  • ||

    Call me what you want, as soon as you don't use human I know what you ARE and what your motives are.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Non sequitur.

  • RedDragon6009||

    All I want to know is how much can Barrack "Mom Jeans" Obama bench press?

  • Warty||

    I'd be stunned if he lock out 135 with a pause at the bottom.

  • ||

    How much does Michelle weigh?

  • Warty||

    240-260.

  • ||

    Rick Mahorn size. BO better not let her on the court.

  • ||

    It'll be okay. It's mostly ass-weight.

  • ||

    Who cares what he can bench? I bet he squats 180, tops, if he even does squats.

  • Warty||

    He quarter-squats 225 and then flexes in the mirror.

  • ||

    Squats to parallel, or no squats at all. Wimps like Obama should be asked to leave the hall.

  • Warty||

    I witnessed something unheard-of recently: a football player squatting to parallel. It was like seeing a unicorn. I never thought I'd see anything like it.

  • ||

    I know you lift, so I just want to tell you that during my athletic prime, I could squat over 750 lbs. I even did 875 once.

    True story.

  • Warty||

    It only counts if you lift those 875 pounds concurrently, not in sequence.

  • wareagle||

    come on...875? And was that with a suit or raw?

  • ||

    I kid you not. I was a University of Minnesota gymnast. I had freaky big legs, much like a speed-skater. I pulled a hamstring tumbling so the coach sent me down to the trainers -- the same guys that work with the football and hockey teames. The trainer I got took one look at my legs and immediatly called all of the other trainers to come take a look. They marveled.

    Again, true story.

  • ||

    "teames"

    I wasn't the best student...

  • Enough About Palin||

    It so happened that Jerry Sandusky was visiting that day ... no wait ... that was when I was a lot younger ...

  • ||

    No, he wasn't, but it was weird to have them circle up around the trainig table to look at my butt. That's why I've never forgotten it.

  • wareagle||

    damn...that's an impressive weight. Gymnasts are strong folks.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ... if he even does squats.

    I bet he squats when he pees?!?

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    This is all battlefield preparation for next year. Obama can't run on his record, nor can he run on the hopey-changey fluff from last time around. All he's got is attacking his opponent and his opponent's party.

    Why hasn't Obama been able to solve anything? Because of those dastardly Republicans in Congress and the right-wing Supreme Court. That's why you still don't have a job and the bank is taking your house.

  • wareagle||

    aren't the Dems who control the Senate part of Congress, too? Sorry; I forgot. Obama's constituency in the clueless that has no idea Congress has two houses. Or that his party ran both for the first half of his presidency.

  • Snowbee||

    Anyone watching him deliver this speech in Kansas right now? Best line so far:

    "But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can. It only works when there are rules of the road to ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest."

    Fuck.
    This.
    Douche.

  • ||

    But see the sheep among us love him sooooo much they would be glad to let him fu ck them....over and over and over.

    We need a real canidate to wipe this baffoon from the floor!

    From what I see out of the Republicans there is litlle hope and absolutly no change with or with out the "one" in office.

  • NotSure||

    The only thing that can take whatever from whoever is the government. This vile demagogue, is equating freedom to trade with others with stealing.

  • ||

    This vile demagogue, is equating freedom to trade with others with stealing.

    ....only if you made money.....cause making a living that is not "supplied" by the Government is evil.....and all....

  • wareagle||

    This vile demagogue
    -----------------------
    nothing else need follow that.

  • Barack Obama||

    But Roosevelt knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can. That's the governments job!

  • The Derider||

    The republican minority in the Senate filibustered more than any other minority in history. That's why Obama has been "powerless".

  • Warty||

    PWND

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The Senate minority that was filibuster proof for a significant portion of his presidency?

  • The Derider||

    There were never 60 democrats in the senate during his presidency. Obviously it wasn't "filibuster-proof".

  • ||

    There was before Scott Brown was elected. And even then, they had 59 Senators. Obama couldn't convince a single Republican to vote with him? That is pathetic. No President since Carter has been that close to a filibuster proof majority.

    Obama is the worst, most divisive President in my lifetime. Worse than Nixon. That is your job as President; to convince the country to support you policies and pick off just enough of the other side in Congress to get a working majority.

  • The Derider||

    1) Joe Lieberman is not a democrat.

    2) Obama had the votes to PASS plenty of legislation. The republican minority didn't want that to happen, so they FILIBUSTERED MORE THAN ANY MINORITY PARTY EVER. I agree that's pathetic. I don't blame Obama.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't blame Obama.

    Of course not. It's so much easier to blame a straw man with a "Republican Minority" name tag.

  • I blame Canada||

  • ||

    No he didn't have the votes to pass you half wit. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. It was the same rule under Clinton and Bush, both of whom had hostile Congress' to deal with. Yet, everyone but Obama seemed to get things done.

    Face it Obama is a loser. If the majority of the country didn't hate his policies, the Republicans wouldn't have filibustered.

    Think about it, they fought Obama at every turn and were rewarded with the biggest election victory since the civil war. Obama is a loser and is destroying liberalism.

  • The Derider||

    No, it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, and 51 votes to pass a bill. Civics 101 dude.

  • J_L_B||

    Joe Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats, Franken joined in August 2009, and Bernie Sanders is to the left of the entire Democratic party. He had the 60 votes needed to pass practically any liberal wet dream he wanted and he wasted the opportunity.

    And didn't Obama get enough votes to pass Dodd-Frank?

  • k2000k||

    Joe Liberman WAS a democrat until his party threw him under the bus. And even after that he still caucased with the democrats so for all intents and purposes you can count him amongst the demcorats.

  • The Derider||

    He was a democrat until he lost the democratic nomination to someone much more liberal and ran (and won) as an independent.

    Is that what you mean by "throwing him under the bus?"

    He endorsed McCain over Obama, dude. He's no democrat.

  • pfffttt||

    The only thing that distinguishes Joe Lieberman from a liberal Democrat is that JL supports any and all military action in the ME. Also, he and McCain are butt-buddy friends from way back. They have worked together on many occasions to sabotage anything with the slightest whiff of limited government that any Republican might be up to. JL may have supported McCain (in order to support interventionism in the ME), but he votes with the Dems on everything domestic.

  • The Derider||

    Bullshit.

  • ||

    "2) Obama had the votes to PASS plenty of legislation. The republican minority didn't want that to happen, so they FILIBUSTERED MORE THAN ANY MINORITY PARTY EVER. I agree that's pathetic. I don't blame Obama."

    GO TEAM GO!

  • The Derider||

    If not blaming Obama is "GO TEAM GO" then blaming Obama must also be "GO TEAM GO", therefore maybe you should write a letter to the editor or something?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Derider, when your Team no longer has all The Power, it will be just as filibustery and will block any/all efforts by the other Team.

    Then, at some point in the future, your Team will have all the power again, and the other Team will do all the blocking.

    Nothing new here.

  • ||

    1) Joe Lieberman is not a democrat.


    Or a true Scotsman.

  • Mitch||

    I'm glad they did....or we really would be in a world of hurt now....USSA anyone?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    But it was enough to get Obamacare rammed through without nary a Team RED vote.

    Fuck off, douche.

  • The Derider||

    So when the Democrats get 60 votes, it's "rammed through", but when they don't break a filibuster, its because they're weak.

    Heads you win, tails I lose.

  • k2000k||

    Yes Derider it is. It is really hard not to at least nab some votes from the opposition party, all you have to do is offer enough incentives to whatever senator is open to having his vote bought. The fact that the democrats couldn't even get a single republican vote for this bill shows how much of a monstrositey it really was. Republicans are no friends to freedom and sound goverment, yet they wouldn't even touch this bill.

  • The Derider||

    This has not been historically true. The filibuster was used sparingly through most of American history. It ramped up in the 60s (civil rights) and continued to increase through the 80s and 90s. However, it was never used in EVERY SINGLE CASE until the republicans lost the senate and the presidency in 2008. It was never intended to be used for every bill. The constitution says a simple majority is all that's required for senate passage-- the filibuster ups that to 60. Demanding a cloture vote in every instance is a de-facto constitutional amendment.

  • pffttt||

    Demanding a cloture vote in every instance is a de-facto constitutional amendment.

    ... or an indication of just how wildly outside the mainstream the majority party's actions are during a particular session.

    A big question for future historians will be how a political freak like Pelosi came to be the Speaker of the House. She is way, way outside the mainstream and was the driving personality behind most of the radical activity of Congress in the Obama Administration's first two years.

  • The Derider||

    I'm pretty sure that the historical consensus will be that you're a moron.

    What did she push for that is outside of the "mainstream"?

  • ||

    So when the Democrats get 60 votes, it's "rammed through"...


    When a majority of the country is opposed to the legislation? Yes, it is.

  • ||

    One, he had a filibuster proof majority for the first two years. And two, the Republicans are only able to filibuster because Obama is totally incapable of convincing anyone or moving the polls in his favor.

    The Republicans have fought him at every turn and gotten away with it. Why? Because he is an incompetent politician whose policies are deeply unpopular. Lots Presidents have had hostile Congresses. It is part of the job. And Obama is utterly incompetent as President and generally at politics. As a result, the only way he is ever able to get anything done is by shear force of votes. When he lost that, he had nothing.

  • The Derider||

    One, no he didn't ever have a filibuster proof majority. 58 democrats plus Joe Lieberman doesn't count.

    Two, they fought him at every turn with the filibuster. They used it more than any other minority. They got away with it because the senate is broken.

  • ||

    They got away with it because they took a popular position. The Dems could have filibustered Bush just as much. But they didn't because Bush was able to convince people and get a few Dems to vote for his policies.

    The Senate is no more or less broken now that it was in the 90s or the 00s. The difference is that the current President, unlike Bush and Clinton, is a loser.

  • sarcasmic||

    You are right that the Senate is broken. Been broken since the 17th Amendment.

  • wareagle||

    they fought him at every turn
    -------------------------------
    being a leader means being able to work across the aisle. Did Reagan ever have a Repub majority in either house? Maybe the Senate briefly. Clinton spent his last 6 years with a Repub Congress. Stuff got done in both administrations, each of which is remembered as a time of relative prosperity and opportunity.

    Obama is a community organizer. He has never moved beyond that; just count the lies in every speech: Repubs want dirty air and dirty water, and all the rest. He likes the title of president but has no desire for the actual job.

  • The Derider||

    Yeah, it's Obama's fault that Republicans wouldn't work with him.

    It has nothing to do with Republicans that "Hope he fails".

  • ||

    Yes it is. Politicians are going to do what is necessary to stay in office. If Obama could have convinced the country to support his policies, the Republicans would have voted with him out of survival. Further, if Obama wasn't such an insufferable asshole who has spent three years calling Republicans racist and making no effort to compromise, he might have gotten a few votes that way too.

  • Tony||

    When did he call Republicans racist?

    Why do you Republicans think it's OK to lie constantly? Is your cause of lower tax rates for billionaires really all that important?

  • J_L_B||

    If Republicans are pathological liars, "rewarded with the biggest election victory since the civil war," to quote John.

  • J_L_B||

    If Republicans are pathological liars [why were they], "rewarded with the biggest election victory since the civil war," to quote John.

  • Toe Knee||

    The people are dumb idiots DUH!! Their betters should... no MUST control them for their own sake lest they destroy themselves. Their decisions are always wrong, except sometimes they vote progressive, then they're right, but other times the decisions are not to be taken at face value, those losers don't know their _ from their _.

  • J_L_B||

    A spoof that is probably very close to the truth.

  • The Derider||

    Because the economy sucked and congressional elections that aren't the same year as a presidential election tend to go against the president's party.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do you Republicans think it's OK to lie constantly?

    Says someone who lies constantly. Like for example in the next sentence.

    Is your cause of lower tax rates for billionaires really all that important?

    Not raising taxes is the same as lowering taxes.

  • wareagle||

    When did he call Republicans racist?
    -------------------------------------
    he has given tacit approval for three years every time his dogwashers cry race. It's as if Obama is the first president in history to have been criticized by the other side. The man is the opposite side of the same coin as Palin - limited accomplishment, phyllo-thin skin, a need for adoration.

    And the "billionaires" talking point is just that and all but the most committed collectivists know that. You are also lying - no one has advocated lowering their taxes; some believe that no one's tax rates should increase.

  • The Derider||

    So you admit that you're a liar? Calling someone a racist = giving tacit approval to other people calling someone a racist?

  • wareagle||

    it's Obama's fault that his first response to Repub suggestions was "I won". It's Obama's fault that he has sought to perpetuate one boogeyman after another. It's Obama's fault that health care was crafted by the Harry/Nancy nexus in such secrecy that even the princess did not know what was in it. It is Obama's fault that he blatantly lies: "repubs want dirty air and dirty water".

    It is Obama's fault that he is NOT a leader and does not want to be one. He is the organizer in chief. Hoping he fails came from Rush who cannot spend a single taxpayer dollar, cast a single vote, or write one letter of legislation. So, you're saying a talk show host is more powerful than POTUS. That should be a deal-killer for re-election.

  • The Derider||

    I'm saying that Rush Limbaugh has more power over REPUBLICANS than the POTUS. I too hope it is a deal killer for their re-elections, but with an electorate as ill-informed as you...

  • J_L_B||

    but with an electorate as ill-informed as you...

    Like I said, the Toe Knee spoof above accurately describes the left's view of the people they seek to govern.

  • The Derider||

    How many quotes making fun of the American electorate do you think I can find on Reason.com? What percentage will be from "the left"? Care to make an estimate?

  • wareagle||

    people here make fun of both teams. The left makes fun of the right-leaning part of the electorate on Huffy-Puffy, DailyKos, the MSM, and so forth.

    I'm informed enough to know that liberalism is toxic, mostly because there is global evidence to support that conclusion. Even without factoring in Obama. Doesn't mean the Repub nominee would be better but I believe he would be less bad.

  • J_L_B||

    The "but he did it too" argument?

    The issue is with the people deriding (pardon the pun) the electorate and then seeking to acquire their vote. It's inconsistent.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Apparently, Derider demands that there be at least a 50/50 slap against Team Red and Team Blue, at all times.

  • pfftt||

    Team Red sucks, but it is only Team Blue that has the cheek to insist that the political football should always be moving toward the Team Blue goal line no matter who is in charge and gets pissy if Team Red ever offers up any resistance.

  • The Derider||

    You morons are the only ones talking about "the left" and "the right" like they're monolithic groups.

    J_L_B said "Like I said, the Toe Knee spoof above accurately describes the left's view of the people they seek to govern"

    Learn to fucking read.

  • The Derider||

    No, actually, that was wareagle who said "people here make fun of both teams"

    I never mentioned Team anything.

  • The Derider||

    FUCKING SUCK IT YOU HYPOCRITES

    wareagle|12.6.11 @ 2:50PM|#

    aren't the Dems who control the Senate part of Congress, too? Sorry; I forgot. Obama's constituency in the clueless that has no idea Congress has two houses. Or that his party ran both for the first half of his presidency.

    WHERE WAS YOUR GO TEAM GO SHIT THEN?

  • ||

    http://www.calvin.edu/academic.....aric10.jpg

    "How can I become a dictator if no one helps?"

  • ||

    Here's a hint for you, sport. Politicians always hope their opposition fails. That's why it is called an opposition. That Mr. Obama took such extreme positions that opposing him made for good politics isn't something that Republicans are to blame for.

  • sarcasmic||

    He said himself that he's not a leader.

    He's a ruler.

  • ||

    This President is weak because he's been aiming to be a transformational president without making much of a case that the particular transformation he had in mind is both necessary and advisable. He ran in 2008 on a two-item agenda:
    1. Hope
    2. Change
    That's a pretty slim agenda to accord much of a mandate for any politician. However, once in office, Mr. Obama proceeded to push a very aggressive agenda of left-of-center wish-list items. In large part, he was successful in pushing many of these items through. However, while popular with much of his base, many of these items don't rank particularly highly on the public's list of priorities (in many cases they're downright at odds with the public's priorities). Exacerbating matters, Mr. Obama has seemed fairly cavalier, if not irresponsible, with regard to the one issue that the public views as urgent - the economy. Rather than adapt to the fact that, as a result of his overreaching, public sentiment has shifted noticeably to his opposition, Mr. Obama has responded by attempting to bulldoze his opponents with accusations of racism and obstructionism, as if they were doing it to him personally rather than reflecting the appetite of their constituents.
    1. Hope
    2. Change
    That's a pretty slim agenda to accord much of a madate for any politician. However, once in office, Mr. Obama proceeded to push a very aggressive agenda of left-of-center wish-list items. In large part, he was successful in pushing many of these items through. However, while popular with much of his base, many of these items don't rank particularly highly on the public's list of priorities (in many cases they're downright at odds with the public's priorities). Exacerbating matters, Mr. Obama has seemed fairly cavalier, if not irresponsible, with regard to the one issue that the public views as urgent - the economy. Rather than adapt to the fact that, as a result of his overreaching, public sentiment has shifted noticably to his opposition, Mr. Obama has responded by attempting to bulldoze his opponents with accusations of racism and obstructionism, as if they were doing it to him personally rather than reflecting the appetite of their constituents.

  • ||

    Sorry for the repeat of the latter half.

  • homer||

    You will pay for those wasted bits. YOU.WILL.PAY!!!!

  • The Derider||

    Hope, Change, and going into Pakistan to kill Osama.
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....6420070801

    He's 1 for 3!

  • yomada||

    I don't often quote Karl Rove, but when I do, I say,

    "Barack Obama is ideologically radical, but personally and politically timid."

  • yomada||

    I'd bet that Obama can be thrown off his game in basketball just by throwing a few elbows into his ribs and slapping his arms a bit when he shoots. He's the kind of guy who would start whining and pouting and pointing fingers to the point that even players on his own team would be embarrassed.

    Come to think of it, he's kind of like that in politics as well.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Obama isn't powerless.

    He's witless, gutless, shameless and feckless, but not powerless.

  • Tony||

    He has a lot of foreign policy power, and very little domestic policy power.

    It's especially rich to see Romney et al criticize him for not leading enough, when before he was turning the country into a Marxist hellhole with his unfettered abuses of power.

    It's not a healthy thing for one political party to have completely unchained itself to any principles or policy ideas other than "Obama is evil and should be opposed no matter what he does."

  • wareagle||

    yes Tony,
    he led the charge against two somewhat reliable American allies who, however distasteful, were better than what the incoming Muslim Brotherhood-led govt will bring. And, he knew what would follow Mubarak and Qaddafi.

    For two years, he had all the domestic power a POTUS could want. Result? A wasted 800-billion stimulus and the clusterfuck of Obamacare.

  • The Derider||

    This is bullshit. He never had a filibuster-proof majority, and Republicans filibustered everything they could. Healthcare and the stimulus ended up as watered-down marginal bullshit compared to what Obama really wanted.

  • ||

    This is bullshit. He never had a filibuster-proof majority,


    Actually, yes, he did
    http://articles.nydailynews.co.....enate-race

    Healthcare and the stimulus ended up as watered-down marginal bullshit compared to what Obama really wanted.


    So, we are only fucked, rather than royally fucked.

  • ||

    Tony Translated: The Republicans are being a bunch of meanies, picking on poor Barry.

  • Tony||

    I think we're well past that. It's been nonstop vitriol since Jan. 20, 2009. The methodology of one of two major political parties has exclusively been primitive hate mongering, the worst kind of politics imaginable, the refuge of the extremist and desperate.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Oh no, not vitriol? How awful for him. Poor little leader of the free world.

  • The Derider||

    But somehow it's his fault that there wasn't a compromise in the Senate. What tripe.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Well, no, I don't think that it was his fault (not speaking for anyone else here). I just don't think it's a bad thing that one of the most powerful men in the world is called out for everything by everyone. And it's not like Bush got an easy ride (nor did Clinton or Bush Snr. or Reagan) - and nor should he have done.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And when - eventually - your Team no longer holds The Wand of Ultimate Power, it will be your Team's turn to exclusively hatemonger.

    Not that they don't already. And it's a lot of fun to watch the back-and-forth. In fact, it should be encouraged.

    But don't pretend your Team is above such behavior as has been used by the other Team.

  • ||

    Tony online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM8l3X_7Hkg

    In case your memory is a bit off, I don't exactly recall your buddies on Team Blue (Oh, hell, you personally) refraining from "primitive hate mongering, the worst kind of politics imaginable, the refuge of the extremist and desperate" a few years ago. More to the point, would you please be so kind as to explain where it is you've seen all these personal attacks on the president? Here's a hint, "he's a socialist" isn't generally considered a personal attack. "He's run up ruinous deficits" isn't a personal attack. "His policies are an abject failure" isn't a personal attack.

  • ||

  • ||

    GO TEAM GO!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "one political party"

    Just one?

    "The next Republican president will be evil and should be opposed no matter what he does"

    There... that's what you should have said.

  • yomada||

    It's especially rich to see Romney et al criticize him for not leading enough, when before he was turning the country into a Marxist hellhole with his unfettered abuses of power.

    Romney wasn't turning the country into a Marxist hellhole, Tony. He was doing that to MA and his abuses of power were not unfettered. They were constrained by his magic underwear.

  • Chaos Punk||

    Get involved with local politics...

  • yakoff||

    In Soviet Russia, local politics get involved with you.

    Actually, happen in America, too.

  • Chaos Punk||

    WTF is this gay ass shit?

  • first||

    Fashion model. Nude model. Model de choix of Bohemian Paris. Home town beauty queen.

    LUBA SHUMEYKO reigns supreme as the First Lady of Hegre-Art.com. There are a lot of models. There are a lot of photographs. But only Luba makes the unique link to master photographer Petter Hegre through the golden band of a wedding ring. They are the golden couple, the happening people of Generation N - the New Nude Age. To be here is to be a part of it.

    Shy, proud, ultra-feminine from her bow-shaped lips to her little pink toes, "she was born wearing high heels," as Petter Hegre puts it. And if it's not a miracle having one Luba, there happens to be two: a mirror image. Luba and Nadya are the supertwins from the Ukraine, the bread basket of old Mother Russia and producers now of the most vital crop on Planet Earth: beautiful girls.

    Oh, yeah, Luba Means Love. What else?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    It is not a positive statement about one's country when the chief export is women for mail order brides and pornographic, err, I mean, tasteful nudity photo shoots.

    Hey, what's going on with that whole Putin thing?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "When did he call Republicans racist?"

    It's a common tactic used by those left-of-centerists who feel a need to bastardize words with specific meanings.

    Hint.

  • Tony||

    So Barack Obama didn't ever call anyone a racist, and John is a liar?

  • Chaos Punk||

    Does Barack Obama know you even exist?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I think Barry hints at it... he lets his underlings do the heavy lifting, though.

  • ||

    Well, there is this

    In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/tea-.....z1fqWzbu4W

    By the way, when did George Bush ever say that those opposed to the Iraq War weren't good Americans?

  • Chaos Punk||

    wrong

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement