I think this was the most that any President has had to overcome!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BryanBiCurious, Dec 29, 2011.

  1. BryanBiCurious

    BryanBiCurious New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Coast of Florida
    The first 2 years he had a House that was Democrat and a Senate that was Republican. Then 2 years later it was a House Republican and a Senate Democrat.
    How can the American people win?
    How can the President be vindicated?
     
  2. B_enzia35

    B_enzia35 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    That's sorta the way it should be...
     
  3. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm wonder what Senile McCain would have done differently if elected. I can't see he would have done any better job than Obama. I know i would have prayed for his good heath.
     
  4. cruztbone

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Capitola CA USA
    this is common in Europe and elsewhere. Obama is the true leader that he is because he can , and does, deal with it. Reelect Obama in 2012 and see more of his ability to roll with the changes.
     
  5. pablo229

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    City of Sin
    Um, the first 2 years he almost had a super-majority in both houses. Upon election, he had over 60% in the House, and had a 60-40 majority in the Senate. This was filibuster-proof in both houses. That ended when Ted Kennedy passed away and Scott Brown won his seat, making it a 59-41 majority in the Senate. Which, still, was a majority that most presedients would never see during an 8-year presidency. So the "what could he do?" card doesn't actually play too well for those first 2 years.

    I'm not desputing your position on whether he's done a good job or not. But if you run into a die-hard Republican and say he didn't have both houses by a large majority the first 2 years, expect a lot yelling from that person.
     
  6. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male

    It is in a manner of speaking too early to tell where the chips on this piece of history will fall. Barak Obama has had a very difficult time to be certain but in a far more dire predicament was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. F.D.R. had the first depression and the mess that resulted when things were out of control last time. While Barak has had the middle east problems, F.D.R. had World War II and an entire world at war. If it was not at war, as a country, it was no help at all which also was a good description for some countries at this time. There was no difference in that Democratic Roosevelt according to the GOP during those years could do nothing right and they roadblocked him every chance they got.

    Before the War, Roosevelt brought about the W.P.A. and the C.C.C. to put Americans back to work. At that time, the Republicans were screaming about the spending and ignoring the number of people who were found dead on the street when Roosevelt's programs good or bad were in fact having a positive effect.

    At the time Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, drawing the United States absolutely into World War II the men and women not fit enough for military service went to work to build enough "war machine", and it was this that took care of the "final end" of the depression because if it was young it was in the Military, and if it was not able to be there, it was working for the war effort. Employment went from high to nearly non existent because of the war.

    The Vice President to F.D.R. was of course the very feisty Harry Truman who called it as he saw it. While the leadership styles were very different, Truman was every bit as competent as Roosevelt when it came to leadership.

    False accusations about the personal lives of politicians are nothing new. F.D.R. was accused of sending a U.S. Navy destroyer to pick up his dog "Falla". They accused Eleanor of numerous things that were questionable and the same was said of his children. The main difference is that F.D.R. had a way of taking advantage of the media and he was a master at laughing and countering their tries to undermine confidence in him. His speech over the dog issue may be able to be found on various sites including You Tube. It was a great speech with a great sense of humor. When it came to Harry Truman there was a different mindset. Harry had a motto and it was "the buck stops here". Harry historically did not get mad, Harry historically got "even" and he was afraid of nobody.

    When Douglas MacArthur known to some as "Dougout Doug" said things a few years later during the "Korean Conflict" Truman felt were damaging to the Presidency and were in fact insubordination, MacArthur, open mouth all the time though his record in the previous war would make it a non issue and protect him, he then found himself without a job and forced into retirement. Harry did not have F.D.R's sense of humor. Harry took no prisoners! He got blood and did not hesitate to do it if he deemed it necessary.

    Also remember that during the war limited bipartisan cooperation still existed. At that time leaders were held responsible for their actions. Dwight D. Eisenhower was chosen to lead forces in Europe even though he was a Republican, because next to the controversial and often problematic George S. Patton, he was the best and most qualified that we had as a commanding General. Also directed with the endorsement of both F.D.R. and later Truman was the positioning of Omar Bradley because he was so very respected by the average foot soldier.

    While Barak has not had a picnic by any means I tend to think that both F.D.R. and Harry Truman both had things tougher up to this point. If Barak Obama were to be re-elected, what he manages to do in his second term in office would in fact really be the decision maker. Remember that F.D.R. died in office with an extended term because of the second world war. If Barak goes the second term, we can then in fact compare more accurately.

    Growing up in a family deeply impacted by WWII makes a big difference in an issue like this. My Stepfather was an MD who achieved the rank of Colonel. He served on the front lines in what later became MASH units. My Biological Dad served in the United States Navy as a CPO setting up supply lines. As a kid, a family friend who repaired our then "new" electronics survived the Bataan Death March and was in a Japanese P.O.W. camp from that point on serving his country. My Mother worked at that time for the Long Beach, California Naval Supply Depot. That point in History was drilled into me incessantly.

    Time will tell, as we progress on.

    Recent developments with Barak finally growing some balls give me hope that he may still surprise me and make something really interesting for the history books. . . . Even if I don't agree with his decisions, he is finally taking responsibility and doing something in some direction. It may land in the Courts later, but historically things like this are rarely overturned.
     
    #6 FuzzyKen, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  7. dude_007

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Yes, the Dems messed up the first year and a half (Obama took office in 09) trying to win support from conservatives. I admire the President for trying. People criticize him now for being a weak leader. He may not have inherited the country at its all-time low, but a close second. He has, however, received the most criticism from the opposite side and been the most scrutinized on every move. Personally, I think Pelosi played a bigger hand in the problems the first two years, and why the Dems lost the house.
     
    #7 dude_007, Jan 5, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  8. B_Marius567

    B_Marius567 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male

    what about
    the civil war
    the great depression
    WW1
    WW2
    the the korean war
    the veteran war
     
  9. fluoro

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    246
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indianapolis (IN, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    You're forgetting about Al Franken in Minnesota (and the intransigence of the Republicans). Norm Coleman (after calling on Franken to concede to save the taxpayers the expense of a recount) fought the election results in the courts and kept Franken from being seated until July 7th.

    This article gives some perspective on the supermajority timeline:

    The Democrats’ 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com

     
  10. pablo229

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    City of Sin
    Sure, the number of days for the true super-majority was less than 1-1/2 years. But there were also several key Democrats that held up the passing of health care reform. While the R's certainly dug their heels in, I think the D's would have been able to do more during this window of time if they had 1.) Unified their own party better, and 2.) Tried to pass smaller bills addressing critical aspeccts that the R's wouldn't vote for. The fact that HCR was a 2,000+ document, it soaked up all the time the D's had during this window.

    One more thing: the real mistake the White House made (if you look at it from a Democrat's POV), is that they should have campaigned much, MUCH harder for Scott Brown's opponent. Such a key seat in a traditionally liberal district, the WH should have thrown the kitchen sink into campaigning for that seat.
     
  11. B_enzia35

    B_enzia35 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Haha, Obama went to Mass. to stump for the guy against Brown. I would say that's the kitchen sink right there.
     
  12. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,897
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    600
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    An interesting perspective. What you guys are saying is that in the US under the very best circumstances, a government never has the power that one in the UK does. A UK government would expect as a matter of course to have sufficient party members elected that a few of them refusing to vote with the government wouldnt matter, and anyway would be most unlikely. A majority in the UK is 1 more than the rest, and allows you to do absolutely everything.

    Whether this means the UK is better governed is hard to say, I dont see much evidence that all these squabbling congressmen have any greater real difference between then than there is between UK politicians, whichever side they are nominally on.
     
  13. travis1985

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Messages:
    868
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo
    Do you think so? I think about 2002-2008 was a really bad time to be George Bush as far as being criticized and scrutinized on every move. Deserved? Yes. But still the alltime record-setter in that category.
     
  14. hot-rod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,565
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Lake Austin, Austin, Texas
    Me too! LMAO
     
Draft saved Draft deleted