Obama deserves 2 terms to have somewhere near a chance to begin to clean up

[Ecumenist]

the mess the repubs visitted on our country. You know, the right has been seething blue smoke out of their rears because Obama did in 3 years what their boys couldn't do in 8, meaning getting bin ladin. This is a spoof but I bet President Obama has had more than a few giggles over this:

I kinda wish we had seen a press release regarding the taking out of osama. Enjoy!!

[Citizen Worker]

1. If anyone believes that the execution of bin Laden is the ticket to prosperity I have a bridge

across the Sahara Desert that I'm willing to sell at a stupendous price. Are there any takers?

[Ecumenist]

2. Sorry to burst your bubble but unfortunately, I believe, (and a

whole lot of other people) know that if he hadn't gotten bin ladin, it would have been used against him to keep him from having any chance of reelection. As it is, the fact that he was blocked from implementing health care for all Americans and hasn't had enough time to turn the economy around. Hell, DU'ers denigrate him daily because of things he's BEEN BLOCKED from doing. So, think what you will, facts are the facts.

[BlueIris]

16. I think it's a huge mistake for the Admin to have promoted the killing of bin Laden

as some kind of accomplishment. Not only is the "killing=achievement" message offensive, they took a big gamble using this killing as The One. What if it turns out it wasn't as clean or effective an op as they would like the world to believe.

I won't be at all surprised if the bin Laden operation comes back to haunt him.

[jwirr]

3. It took FDR four terms and a war to get the job done and we expect Obama to do it in one.

[Ecumenist]

4. Thank youm which is exactly what I was saying about the "capture" of bin ladin.

He can't undo this colossal mess in what is effectively 3 years, (a year is crapped away with getting going in the beginning AND the rest is blown away in campaigning) and in his case,being a black man and inheriting a mess would have guaranteed an inability to viability to run WITHOUT getting bin ladin.

[Edweird]

8. That's a lie. The New Deal was in FDR's FIRST TERM. He was re-elected because people LOVED HIM!

[jwirr]

10. Well you may see it that way - tell me are you old enough to remember - I am.

[Edweird]

11. So are you denying that the New Deal was in his first term? That's FACT not opinion.

[FarLeftFist]

18. FDR also had 377 House seats and 73 senators.

[Edweird]

20. 2006 and 2008 saw wins by Dems and a significant majority - which Obama pissed away on RW policy.

He had the opportunity to do great things but instead chose 'bipartisanship' - AKA RW policy. 2010 bore the fruit of Obama's bait and switch.

[joshcryer]

21. He had 49 days at most to "do great things."

Given that he campaigned as a post-partisan, he didn't use the opportunity. Fully expected. He tried to work together.

I wish he was a partisan, but he wasn't. Partisanship gets too bad a rap. I don't know why.

[Edweird]

23. 2010 went the way it did because of policy decisions by Obama. He chose RW policy

and the Dems lost support because of it.

[joshcryer]

28. Teabaggers got out 9% more voters than we did.

Way to self-sabotage. When will we learn? If you want to make a statement against bad policies, elect good policymakers.

[BzaDem]

29. You know, it is quite misleading to pretend that 258 house seats and 58-60 senate seats is at all

equivalent to 377 house seats and 73 Senate seats.

The more these incomplete arguments are made, the more I realize that the Obama critics really have little actual case. If they aren't going to acknowledge that the policy constraint is the 60th Senator, and that this constraint under Obama is much higher than the constraint under FDR, they really aren't taking part in the same conversation.

Until people realize that the constraints of Congress matter much more than the personality in the White House, they are going to be disappointed decade after decade that they are never getting what they want. Sometimes, the problem is not the President -- it is that that people's expectations need to be significantly recalibrated.

[jwirr]

25. No but for it all to come together took more time than to get it passed. Everyone did not recover

just like that.

[Edweird]

26. But it did not take FDR 4 terms to accomplish it as you claimed.

[BzaDem]

30. It took a Congress that Obama didn't even come remotely close to having. n/t

[Edweird]

32. If he hadn't pissed away his majority advocating the RW individual mandate 2010 could have easily

gone a different way. There was a reason FDR was president for life and RW policy (Or "bipartisanship&quot wasn't it.

[BzaDem]

35. You are missing my point. I'm saying the FIRST Congress Obama had wasn't even remotely close to what

FDR had.

Furthermore, we are very fortunate that he passed the individual mandate, and declined to tell the sick that they would continue to be screwed for another two decades. The fact that some people with little knowledge of healthcare economics say otherwise shouldn't deter Obama from doing the correct thing.

[Edweird]

47. I'm saying that Obama had a significant majority to start with and could have added to it

by embracing progressive Liberal Dem policies instead of RW policy like the individual mandate and 'bipartisanship'. Your implication that people will no longer be screwed by insurance companies is either pathetically naive or shockingly dishonest. Insurance companies helped write the bill. The individual mandate is the opposite of universal healthcare and social medicine - that makes it the opposite of 'progressive' and 'liberal'. You are applauding RW policy.

[uponit7771]

13. ...and Obama got more people access to health care (kids and PC) in his first term but...

...of course the bashers will minimize that feet as much as possible

[Charlemagne]

14. Here is one of those minimizations

The most prodigious piece of the health care bill was the mandate. A program favored, in the recent past, by both Mitt Romney and Newt (who are republicans). Moreover, the mandate is something that can easily be challenged as unconstitutional. Why make landmark legislation that includes its own undoing? You shouldnt make it easy for them.

[Edweird]

19. Oh yeah - the RW individual mandate. Which Candidate Obama CAMPAIGNED AGAINST!

Then in 2010, surprise surprise, the Dems suddenly lost support....

[joshcryer]

22. Candidate Obama never ruled out mandates. Progressive economicists said it was needed.

Obama said that he might do mandates if it was found to be necessary. They did the numbers. It was necessary.

[Edweird]

24. No, it wasn't.

[joshcryer]

27. Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/poll-majority-now-support-the-individual-mandate.php?ref=fpb

[Edweird]

31. Whether that's the case or not, it's still RW policy, not necessary, and nowhere near as popular as

payer which had support around the 70% range.

Medicare has no individual mandate.
Canada has no individual mandate.
Claiming it was 'necessary' is a lie.
The insurance companies are the problem and keeping them part of the system simply passes the buck.

[BzaDem]

33. Medicare absolutely has an individual mandate. So does Canada.

No one is allowed to opt out of Medicare, and no one is allowed to opt out of single payer healthcare in Canada.

If you don't have a mandate to have health insurance, you can't have a public option. If you have a public option without a mandate, than those that are sick will all join the public option, making premiums prohibitive for the healthy. The healthy would go to private insurance. Without the mandate, premiums of the public option would be orders of magnitude higher than private insurance.

And to be honest, no one who actually studies healthcare economics disputes this. Without the healthy in the system, the sick get screwed.

If you want to argue that we should not do anything until we get single payer, and let the sick continue to get screwed, you should forthrightly make that argument. You shouldn't pretend that Obama could have passed single payer.

[Edweird]

37. It is funded through taxes - that is the opposite of an 'individual mandate'.

[BzaDem]

39. A mandate is a mandate regardless of how it is funded. Either the healthy are forced to participate,

or they aren't.

If the healthy are not forced to participate, then the sick can't get affordable insurance. It is really quite simple.

[Edweird]

41. It is simple. So simple that your lies are embarrassingly transparent.

Taxpayer funded social programs are not 'individual mandates'.

[joshcryer]

34. LOL, Medicare is taxed. It's a mandate.

[Edweird]

36. Yeah, uh, tax funded social programs are the opposite of the 'individual mandate'.

That's what makes them RW and makes Obama the anti-FDR.

[BzaDem]

38. I'll ask again: Assume for the sake of argument that Bernie Sanders was correct, when he said that

Single Payer would not get more than 10 votes in the Senate.

Do you think Obama should have responded to that reality by saying "sorry everyone who is sick, you are screwed, we won't pass healthcare?"

Or not?

[Edweird]

40. We ALREADY HAVE SINGLE PAYER - it's called Medicare.

[BzaDem]

42. Do I really need to spell it out? Assume for the sake of argument that Single payer FOR ALL would

not get more than 10 votes in the Senate.

Do you think Obama should have responded to that reality by saying "sorry everyone who is sick, you are screwed, we won't pass healthcare?"

Or not?

[Edweird]

45. Except for the glaring FACT that there is no need to ASSUME anything.

Medicare already exists. Your apologia is made of straw. The individual mandate is RW policy. (Candidate) Obama CAMPAIGNED AGAINST IT - for good reason.

[treestar]

6. Wow that guy has got it all down!

Speech and mannerisms and all!



Good point why is everything Obama does "not soon enough?" There are 24 hours in a day. Geez.

[Ecumenist]

9. I know, right? He's hilarious....

And the Michelle impersonator is VERY close to the first lady.

[Charlemagne]

15. his name is

Iman Crosson. I went to college with him.


cheers!

[AtomicKitten]

7. Love the walk to and from the podium.

[Ecumenist]

12. Yeah , me too.

[joshcryer]

17. I really enjoy your posts Ecumenist, keep up the good fight!

Yes, getting Bin Laden is very important to Americans. Liberals wish it went about differently, but since we're a minority it won't matter much to the electorate as a whole.

I'm not going to denigrate those who have a view different from mine.

[Ecumenist]

43. Awww, thank you JoshCryer...I appreciate it ..ALOT!!

[kentuck]

44. It will be a choice between Obama and Romney...

There are no other options. That is the reality.

[NorthCarolina]

46. Plus, we still have a few freedoms left

that need trimming....for our own good and safety of course.