The Obama years: 'The trailers were great, the movie was horrible'

[Grim17]

This is an op-ed from the UK Telegraph that evaluates Obama's presidency like it was a movie he was reviewing. I'd have to say he's a pretty astute movie critic.

The Obama years: 'The trailers were great, the movie was horrible'
By Matt Lewis12:01PM BST 05 Jul 2014


Six years in, that's the general consensus on the Obama presidency. Having ridden a wave of "hope and change" to the White House, President Barack Obama has failed to deliver on his huge box office, err, ballot box expectations.


Just how bad is it? Since it is summer "blockbuster" season, I'll explain thusly: There's a difference between being bad and being most awesomely bad. You and I probably never even hear of the worst movies made. They are forgotten, not mocked. But the truly disastrous flops - the Water Worlds and Ishtars of the world - are the movies that come with huge budgets and huge expectations.

Snip

So what's to blame? For one thing, all the talk of "hope and change" turned out to be a stark contrast to his practice of stoking bitterness and division in order to win re-election. Call it false advertising or buyer's remorse, but just because someone buys a ticket to a show doesn't mean they're going to applaud. Somewhere along the way, this feel-good romcom turned into a horror show.


To most Americans, the economy continues to feel anemic, and it's hard to imagine the international situation could get much worse - again a case of false advertising.

Snip


What is more, it's becoming clear that Obama has lost interest in being president and now looks like a prisoner of the job. If the Obama presidency was a movie, even the president's now shuffling for the exit. It's time to roll credits.


And really, who could blame him? It's not just that Obama has failed in the eyes of most Americans, but that he has also failed to advance his own goals. Yes, of course, there is a laundry list of famous broken promises, including the closing of Guantanamo Bay. But here I'm speaking more broadly.


During President Obama's tenure, income inequality has risen, the black unemployment rate has consistently been twice that of whites, and (despite some tough rhetoric) he has yet to rein in Wall Street. And for a president who talked a lot about civil liberties and privacy, revelations about NSA surveillance, and the use of drones, should have civil libertarians on the left and the right concerned.

The Obama years: 'The trailers were great, the movie was horrible' - Telegraph

 

[US Conservative]

Good article...

Obama fits the latter category - extremely talented and hyped, but ultimately, unsatisfying. True, I've been making this case for a long time - but now, there's evidence.
A Quinnipiac poll released in America this week has Obama ranked as the "worst president" since World War II. For various reasons, this may or may not be entirely fair, but considering his competition included Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, this is problematic. And, what is more, a majority surveyed also said "the nation would be better off" had Mitt Romney won presidency.

Pretty damning stuff...

 

[Kurmugeon]

I asked my wife yesterday, "if you could do just one thing, by magic button, to fix America, what would it be?"

Her reply, "I wish that Romney had won, instead that damn Obama".


I don't know if Romney would have been significantly better, but at least he would be trying for unity and economic improvement.

Obama and his ilk are like the bugs under a fallen tree trunk, they cannot growth wealth themselves, so they feed off of decay, rot, division, dysfunction and destruction of others.

Progressive Fascism and the Vulture Culture.

-

 

[Raven1]

Well, I have a different viewpoint. President Obama has done exactly what he can. I look at Congress and shake my head. I realize that the Republicans are riding high on their obstructionism to hold up anything from getting done, but then they want to point fingers at everyone else for nobody getting things done.

What's wrong with you that you hold up the job being done and then cry fowl for the job not being done? Have you lost your mind?

 

[US Conservative]

I asked my wife yesterday, "if you could do just one thing, by magic button, to fix America, what would it be?"

Her reply, "I wish that Romney had won, instead that damn Obama".


I don't know if Romney would have been significantly better, but at least he would be trying for unity and economic improvement.

Obama and his ilk are like the bugs under a fallen tree trunk, they cannot growth wealth themselves, so they feed off of decay, rot, division, dysfunction and destruction of others.

Progressive Fascism and the Vulture Culture.

-

Romney would have been better-he was right about the economy, he was right about Russia, and iraq, and he was right about the direction the nation was headed.

Romney was not a conservative, but he was principled and compared to the embarrassment we have in the white house theres nowhere to go but up.

 

[US Conservative]

Well, I have a different viewpoint. President Obama has done exactly what he can. I look at Congress and shake my head. I realize that the Republicans are riding high on their obstructionism to hold up anything from getting done, but then they want to point fingers at everyone else for nobody getting things done.

What's wrong with you that you hold up the job being done and then cry fowl for the job not being done? Have you lost your mind?

Obama did what he can? Every President has had to deal with congress, and many had to deal with the opposing party in power in that congress. Lets face it-Obama hasn't been a stellar leader-and thats what the President is supposed to be. He can't even get everyone on board in his own party, and if you read-you will see that Obama has isolated himself even from his own party.

The republicans have at the very least been principled in mitigating the democrat fail of the last 6 years. Obama's popularity isnt because of anyone else-its his baby.

 

[Raven1]

Obama did what he can? Every President has had to deal with congress, and many had to deal with the opposing party in power in that congress. Lets face it-Obama hasn't been a stellar leader-and thats what the President is supposed to be. He can't even get everyone on board in his own party, and if you read-you will see that Obama has isolated himself even from his own party.

The republicans have at the very least been principled in mitigating the democrat fail of the last 6 years. Obama's popularity isnt because of anyone else-its his baby.

Look here, we elected President Obama because he wasn't quite exactly like the rest of Congress in what he supported and fought for and campaigned for. Now, you want to sell me a story about how your not happy with his progress that you blocked? Think about that. It hasn't mattered what you wanted, because you will block it if President Obama tries to make it happen. I think you're crazy, but I still love you.

 

[code1211]

Well, I have a different viewpoint. President Obama has done exactly what he can. I look at Congress and shake my head. I realize that the Republicans are riding high on their obstructionism to hold up anything from getting done, but then they want to point fingers at everyone else for nobody getting things done.

What's wrong with you that you hold up the job being done and then cry fowl for the job not being done? Have you lost your mind?

If you are working with a guy who wants to burn down your House and you are trying to stop him from burning down your House, then your success is by definition his failure.

Obamas motives may or may not be malevolent, but his goals are hurtful to the country, the people and our world position.

In stark contrast to the way he has divided the country into factions, he has united the Justices on the Supreme Court 13 times to be overturned unanimously. 13 times. I don't care who you are. That's just got to impress you.

 

[US Conservative]

Look here, we elected President Obama because he wasn't quite exactly like the rest of Congress in what he supported and fought for and campaigned for. Now, you want to sell me a story about how your not happy with his progress that you blocked? Think about that. It hasn't mattered what you wanted, because you will block it if President Obama tries to make it happen. I think you're crazy, but I still love you.

Heres your problem-you are confusing Obama's inability to lead with the role and responsibility of congress. Even the democrats in congress have issues with this guy. Go along to get along isn't a valid strategy when Obama is blaming everyone else INCLUDING his own party. In 08, Obama had congress-and we got the trainwreck known as the ACA. Lets not make excuses here, the Obama approval rating isn't just because of republicans-you know it, and so does everyone else.

 

[Sababa]

Obama did what he can? Every President has had to deal with congress, and many had to deal with the opposing party in power in that congress. Lets face it-Obama hasn't been a stellar leader-and thats what the President is supposed to be. He can't even get everyone on board in his own party, and if you read-you will see that Obama has isolated himself even from his own party.

The republicans have at the very least been principled in mitigating the democrat fail of the last 6 years. Obama's popularity isnt because of anyone else-its his baby.

more bull**** for the right wing crazies who made it a point to make anything the PResident wanted to fail. The obstructionism, the nonsense over the debt ceiling and of course the continued lies and stupidity that the sheep of the right wing noise machine ate up.

 

[US Conservative]

If you are working with a guy who wants to burn down your House and you are trying to stop him from burning down your House, then your success is by definition his failure.

Obamas motives may or may not be malevolent, but his goals are hurtful to the country, the people and our world position.

In stark contrast to the way he has divided the country into factions, he has united the Justices on the Supreme Court 13 times to be overturned unanimously. 13 times. I don't care who you are. That's just got to impress you.

Its crystal clear to everyone but the die hard lefties.

 

[code1211]

Look here, we elected President Obama because he wasn't quite exactly like the rest of Congress in what he supported and fought for and campaigned for. Now, you want to sell me a story about how your not happy with his progress that you blocked? Think about that. It hasn't mattered what you wanted, because you will block it if President Obama tries to make it happen. I think you're crazy, but I still love you.

Obama got elected because he successfully portrayed a very intelligent and competent executive Mormon as Hitler with antiquated ideas.

That he could do this pays tribute to the stupidity of those in the press, the inadequacy of the Republican campaign and the failure of our education system.

You seem to think that Obama is qualified and that he is doing/has done a great job.

Please list the good things that are happening to the American people while we have the highest number of unemployed, a diminishing median household income and the worst prospects for our youth since WW2 and a substantial portion of the country's population living in poverty and staying there.

Poverty rate 15%, median income $51,017 - Sep. 17, 2013

[h=1]15% of Americans living in poverty[/h]By Steve Hargreaves @hargreavesCNN September 17, 2013: 3:33 PM ET

 

[US Conservative]

more bull**** for the right wing crazies who made it a point to make anything the PResident wanted to fail. The obstructionism, the nonsense over the debt ceiling and of course the continued lies and stupidity that the sheep of the right wing noise machine ate up.

Spare me. The fact is Obama can't lead-and he hasn't. Its not just the republicans, and its not just the dems, and its not scotus, and its not a conspiracy. You have to see how pathetic this looks. Stop justifying fail.

 

[US Conservative]

Obama got elected because he successfully portrayed a Mormon as Hitler with antiquated ideas.

That he could do this pays tribute to the stupidity of those in the press, the inadequacy of the Republican campaign and the failure of our education system.

You seem to think that Obama is qualified and that he is doing/has done a great job.

Please list the good things that are happening to the American people while we have the highest number of unemployed, the lowest household income and the worst prospects for our youth since WW2 and a substantial portion of the country's population living in poverty and staying there.

Poverty rate 15%, median income $51,017 - Sep. 17, 2013

[h=1]15% of Americans living in poverty[/h]By Steve Hargreaves @hargreavesCNN September 17, 2013: 3:33 PM ET

Obama lied, and prosperity died.

 

[Sababa]

Spare me. The fact is Obama can't lead-and he hasn't. Its not just the republicans, and its not just the dems, and its not scotus, and its not a conspiracy. You have to see how pathetic this looks. Stop justifying fail.

The economy came back, unemployment is down, Osama is dead, all the while the right wing idiots will again work to try repeal ACA while the President has to do the work of the people from his office the best he can.

 

[sangha]

This is an op-ed from the UK Telegraph that evaluates Obama's presidency like it was a movie he was reviewing. I'd have to say he's a pretty astute movie critic.





The Obama years: 'The trailers were great, the movie was horrible' - Telegraph

Though I disagree with some of the examples the author uses, the general thesis is correct. Obama is far less than what he billed himself as

However, when has a candidate campaigned on the promise "I'll be no better than any of my predecessors"?

 

[Perotista]

Well, I have a different viewpoint. President Obama has done exactly what he can. I look at Congress and shake my head. I realize that the Republicans are riding high on their obstructionism to hold up anything from getting done, but then they want to point fingers at everyone else for nobody getting things done.

What's wrong with you that you hold up the job being done and then cry fowl for the job not being done? Have you lost your mind?

Take it from an very old political hand, successful presidents are those who reach across the aisle to work with the opposing party whether that party is in control of congress or not. Now this does not mean the president gives them everything they want, it means they play the game of give and take, the president always gets more, but he always gives the opposing party something. This president has never reached across the aisle to even try to work with congress. His first two years he didn’t have to, he had such huge majorities he really didn’t need a single Republican vote and he acted that way. But unlike Clinton in 1994 when Bill lost control of congress, this president didn’t adjust his tactics or strategy.

Eisenhower had his last six years with a Democratic dominated congress, yet he worked with LBJ then the senate majority leader to get his agenda passed. He was very successful. JFK and LBJ although they both had Democratic congresses through every year of their presidencies, both worked with Everitt Dirksen, then the senate minority leader to get their agendas through congress. What each of these presidents did was first reach across the aisle, they didn’t wait for the opposing party leaders to come to them, they went to the opposing party leader first.

Reagan and Tip O’Neal is a more recent example. Reagan had all 8 of his years in the white house with a Democratic House of Representatives. The first thing he did was invite Tip O’Neal to the white house to see how they could work together and the rest is history. Reagan joins the list of the very successful presidents getting his agenda through congress. Clinton changed his tactic and strategy completely after 1994, his last six years he had a Republican congress and yet he was able to work with them to accomplish his agenda. Clinton got most of all he wanted but he gave the Republicans some of what they wanted too. Clinton was a successful president along with the rest I mentioned.

This president ignored the opposing party his first two years, I can’t say I blame him. He didn’t need them, but he wasted those two year just working on health care and basically nothing else. 2010 happened, he lost the house and this president changed from ignoring Republicans to demonizing them. That is not reaching across the aisle to find someone to work with. I do not think history will look back on the Obama presidency kindly.

 

[US Conservative]

The economy came back, unemployment is down, Osama is dead, all the while the right wing idiots will again work to try repeal ACA while the President has to do the work of the people from his office the best he can.

And heres the news-Obama's "best" isn't good enough, and the position is too important for excuses of any kind. Thats it.

The economy is in the gutter-theres a reason the DNC is telling its members not to bring it up. Unemployment is only down because so many people have stopped looking for work. Osama is dead because of the things GWB put in place, and even then Obama was hesitant. And the ACA is a trainwreck-and the dems know it because they keep delaying its implementation and more importantly funding-they keep trying to push off the bill-its not working.

 

[sangha]

Take it from an very old political hand, successful presidents are those who reach across the aisle to work with the opposing party whether that party is in control of congress or not. Now this does not mean the president gives them everything they want, it means they play the game of give and take, the president always gets more, but he always gives the opposing party something. This president has never reached across the aisle to even try to work with congress. His first two years he didn’t have to, he had such huge majorities he really didn’t need a single Republican vote and he acted that way. But unlike Clinton in 1994 when Bill lost control of congress, this president didn’t adjust his tactics or strategy.

Eisenhower had his last six years with a Democratic dominated congress, yet he worked with LBJ then the senate majority leader to get his agenda passed. He was very successful. JFK and LBJ although they both had Democratic congresses through every year of their presidencies, both worked with Everitt Dirksen, then the senate minority leader to get their agendas through congress. What each of these presidents did was first reach across the aisle, they didn’t wait for the opposing party leaders to come to them, they went to the opposing party leader first.

Reagan and Tip O’Neal is a more recent example. Reagan had all 8 of his years in the white house with a Democratic House of Representatives. The first thing he did was invite Tip O’Neal to the white house to see how they could work together and the rest is history. Reagan joins the list of the very successful presidents getting his agenda through congress. Clinton changed his tactic and strategy completely after 1994, his last six years he had a Republican congress and yet he was able to work with them to accomplish his agenda. Clinton got most of all he wanted but he gave the Republicans some of what they wanted too. Clinton was a successful president along with the rest I mentioned.

This president ignored the opposing party his first two years, I can’t say I blame him. He didn’t need them, but he wasted those two year just working on health care and basically nothing else. 2010 happened, he lost the house and this president changed from ignoring Republicans to demonizing them. That is not reaching across the aisle to find someone to work with. I do not think history will look back on the Obama presidency kindly.

The claim that Obama refused to work with the republicans in congress is just not true. Take ACA for example

It was written, in its' original form, by a committee of six senators, three of whom were republican. When it was submitted to Congress, it was subjected to hundreds of amendments, the majority of which came from republicans. Once in its' final form, Obama went before all of the republicans in Congress and subjected himself to answering their questions and complaints about the bill. The entire forum was televised.

 

[Raven1]

Take it from an very old political hand, successful presidents are those who reach across the aisle to work with the opposing party whether that party is in control of congress or not. Now this does not mean the president gives them everything they want, it means they play the game of give and take, the president always gets more, but he always gives the opposing party something. This president has never reached across the aisle to even try to work with congress. His first two years he didn’t have to, he had such huge majorities he really didn’t need a single Republican vote and he acted that way. But unlike Clinton in 1994 when Bill lost control of congress, this president didn’t adjust his tactics or strategy.

You wrote such a long reply, so I suppose I'll take the time to give you my thoughts in response. Thank you for your effort at making this a better America.

I'll have to disagree with you in your thoughts that President Obama did not reach across the aisle. He did so, and sometimes to his detriment. It's pretty hard to reach across the aisle when the other side wants nothing but to bite your hand.

Eisenhower had his last six years with a Democratic dominated congress, yet he worked with LBJ then the senate majority leader to get his agenda passed. He was very successful. JFK and LBJ although they both had Democratic congresses through every year of their presidencies, both worked with Everitt Dirksen, then the senate minority leader to get their agendas through congress. What each of these presidents did was first reach across the aisle, they didn’t wait for the opposing party leaders to come to them, they went to the opposing party leader first.

Reagan and Tip O’Neal is a more recent example. Reagan had all 8 of his years in the white house with a Democratic House of Representatives. The first thing he did was invite Tip O’Neal to the white house to see how they could work together and the rest is history. Reagan joins the list of the very successful presidents getting his agenda through congress. Clinton changed his tactic and strategy completely after 1994, his last six years he had a Republican congress and yet he was able to work with them to accomplish his agenda. Clinton got most of all he wanted but he gave the Republicans some of what they wanted too. Clinton was a successful president along with the rest I mentioned.

This president ignored the opposing party his first two years, I can’t say I blame him. He didn’t need them, but he wasted those two year just working on health care and basically nothing else. 2010 happened, he lost the house and this president changed from ignoring Republicans to demonizing them. That is not reaching across the aisle to find someone to work with. I do not think history will look back on the Obama presidency kindly.

Look, I don't need your history lessons, as I would dare say that I know more about history than you. I'll bet that you just love you some Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Perotista]

You wrote such a long reply, so I suppose I'll take the time to give you my thoughts in response. Thank you for your effort at making this a better America.

I'll have to disagree with you in your thoughts that President Obama did not reach across the aisle. He did so, and sometimes to his detriment. It's pretty hard to reach across the aisle when the other side wants nothing but to bite your hand.



Look, I don't need your history lessons, as I would dare say that I know more about history than you. I'll bet that you just love you some Thomas Jefferson.

I think each has his opinion, I do remember December of 2010 when it look like cooperation would rule the roost. Remember the president got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty ratified and the Republicans received the extensions of the Bush Tax cuts. There was probably more, but I forgot what they were. I was in a word, excited. But come January of 2011, all that give and take, all that compromise, cooperation was history.

It might have been two hardcore Democratic diehearts in Pelosi and Reid pulled the president aside and told him, no more compromise. It could have been the tea party did the same to Boehner. McConnell I do not think needed any encouragement to not cooperate. Which side first refused to cooperate and which side then in retaliation stopped all cooperation? I haven't the faintest idea and at this point in time I think it is irrelevant. The fact is the president, Reid and Pelosi have the attitude it is their way or no way. The Republicans have the same attitude, their way or the highway. Each side would rather have nothing get accomplished that give one iota to the other even if one side would get 95% of what they want to 5% for the other side.

Now I do like to talk, if that irks you I apologize, but listing the presidents was my way to make the point that one must be able to cooperate across the aisle or end up being a Carter, a Ford and perhaps an Obama and Bush the second. Below average presidents.

 

[Perotista]

The claim that Obama refused to work with the republicans in congress is just not true. Take ACA for example

It was written, in its' original form, by a committee of six senators, three of whom were republican. When it was submitted to Congress, it was subjected to hundreds of amendments, the majority of which came from republicans. Once in its' final form, Obama went before all of the republicans in Congress and subjected himself to answering their questions and complaints about the bill. The entire forum was televised.

I think we just have different views on this. I don't know which side decided to not to cooperate with the other first, I think it is all irrelevant. I do remember December of 2010 when the president got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty and give an extension of the Bush tax cuts to the Republicans. I am sure there was more, but I forgot what they were as these three things sticks in my mind. Than come January of 2011, all that disappeared. Whether it was Pelosi and Reid pulling the President aside and telling him no more compromises and then the GOP retaliated or if it was the tea party telling Boehner no more compromises and then the Democrats retaliated. I don't know and I really don't care who was first and who retaliated. That can be debated on sites like DP. But it is unimportant to me, what is important if the game of give and take, compromise has been thrown out the window for a game of my way or no way.

I will tell you this, in December of 2010 I was one happy camper. I was already to settle in for a great next six years much like Clinton accomplished after the 1994 midterm elections. But that didn't happen, different players. Bill Clinton had been replaced by president Obama, Dole and Lott by McConnell, Mitchell and Dashle by Reid, Gephardt and Foly by Pelosi, Gingrich and Hastert by Boehner. Silly me for expecting another Clinton Era, but December of 2010 is something to be remembered fondly.

 

[Raven1]

I think each has his opinion, I do remember December of 2010 when it look like cooperation would rule the roost. Remember the president got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty ratified and the Republicans received the extensions of the Bush Tax cuts. There was probably more, but I forgot what they were. I was in a word, excited. But come January of 2011, all that give and take, all that compromise, cooperation was history.

It might have been two hardcore Democratic diehearts in Pelosi and Reid pulled the president aside and told him, no more compromise. It could have been the tea party did the same to Boehner. McConnell I do not think needed any encouragement to not cooperate. Which side first refused to cooperate and which side then in retaliation stopped all cooperation? I haven't the faintest idea and at this point in time I think it is irrelevant. The fact is the president, Reid and Pelosi have the attitude it is their way or no way. The Republicans have the same attitude, their way or the highway. Each side would rather have nothing get accomplished that give one iota to the other even if one side would get 95% of what they want to 5% for the other side.

Now I do like to talk, if that irks you I apologize, but listing the presidents was my way to make the point that one must be able to cooperate across the aisle or end up being a Carter, a Ford and perhaps an Obama and Bush the second. Below average presidents.

I appreciate your sentiment, and I don't think that President Obama is flawless. I have and will call him on his mistakes, and I'm not flawless either. However, I do not appreciate revisionist history that tries to paint President Obama as someone who would not reach across the aisle or work with others. No finger pointing is necessary to make my point.

 

[JoeTrumps]

I appreciate your sentiment, and I don't think that President Obama is flawless. I have and will call him on his mistakes, and I'm not flawless either. However, I do not appreciate revisionist history that tries to paint President Obama as someone who would not reach across the aisle or work with others. No finger pointing is necessary to make my point.

I would love to hear all your examples of Obama "reaching across the aisle" to make progress and pass legislation on the country's important issues. I am drawing a blank.

 

[polgara]

I think we just have different views on this. I don't know which side decided to not to cooperate with the other first, I think it is all irrelevant. I do remember December of 2010 when the president got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty and give an extension of the Bush tax cuts to the Republicans. I am sure there was more, but I forgot what they were as these three things sticks in my mind. Than come January of 2011, all that disappeared. Whether it was Pelosi and Reid pulling the President aside and telling him no more compromises and then the GOP retaliated or if it was the tea party telling Boehner no more compromises and then the Democrats retaliated. I don't know and I really care who was first and who retaliated. That can be debated on sites like DP. But it is unimportant to me, what is important if the game of give and take, compromise has been thrown out the window for a game of my way or no way.

I will tell you this, in December of 2010 I was one happy camper. I was already to settle in for a great next six years much like Clinton accomplished after the 1994 midterm elections. But that didn't happen, different players. Bill Clinton had been replaced by president Obama, Dole and Lott by McConnell, Mitchell and Dashle by Reid, Gephardt and Foly by Pelosi, Gingrich and Hastert by Boehner. Silly me for expecting another Clinton Era, but December of 2010 is something to be remembered fondly.

As I have posted before, both of my Democrat brothers have businesses, and they fondly recall the Clinton years as ones when "they had as much work as they could handle." I told them that they seemed to be quite busy during the Bush years, too, and they agreed, but qualified it with "not like the Clinton years." They are saying as little as they can about the Obama years, though - loyal to their party, I guess, although they complain about their business phones not ringing and how slow it's been. :lol:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave: