The Barack Obama review/critique thread

[zabu of nΩd]

An interesting note about the new stimulus/spending bill:

The bill, if passed, requires all recipients of the funds provided by the act to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment. Inspectors General from each department or executive agency will then review, as appropriate, any concerns raised by the public. Any findings of an Inspector General must be relayed immediately to the head of each department and published on Recovery.gov.

This is one of the things that rules about Obama. If he does nothing else notable for the country as President, I think setting a precedent for openness and accountability in government would still make having him in office worth it.

 

[The Ozzman]

http://www.aprilwinchell.com/wp-con...s-tired-of-your-motherfucking-shit/index.html

 

[The Ozzman]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431418276770899.html

Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges.



About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

...

Okay, maybe the precedent isn't quite as strong as one would be led to believe.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

 

[Dak]

...

Okay, maybe the precedent isn't quite as strong as one would be led to believe.

This is no different than when Bush would "visit the troops" and the troops that got to meet him/ask questions, were coached in what questions to ask etc.

Controlling questions is vitally important to controlling image, because if you never have a tough question/one you don't want to answer, you always appear competent and above board.

Staged Troop Interview

Reminds me of the movie "Wag the Dog". Excellent film.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well, scripted press conferences are a good deal more forgivable than blank check government spending without a public paper trail. But being a hypocrite about his alleged 'open government' philosophy isn't going to help his image either.

 

[Dak]

Well, scripted press conferences are a good deal more forgivable than blank check government spending without a public paper trail. But being a hypocrite about his alleged 'open government' philosophy isn't going to help his image either.

This is kind of old news/not important on the grand scale but the blank check given KBR by the Bush administration was gang raped in Iraq. Example:

While I was on Al Asad they built a huuuuge new chow hall. Within like 6 months it mysteriously caught fire and completely burned down. So they had to build it all over again. Suspiciously convenient as fuck for KBR. The previously used main chow hall (and still used in the interim and now on a milited basis) on the base was operated out of the old Iraqi chow hall which never caught fire....as I said before: How convenient.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Isn't selecting reporters on the spot just as prone to bias as a list made in advance? Other than a random draw, I don't know how there isn't some favoritism. And before anyone gets too carried away on this issue, Fox News did get a question in.

 

[Dak]

Isn't selecting reporters on the spot just as prone to bias as a list made in advance? Other than a random draw, I don't know how there isn't some favoritism. And before anyone gets too carried away on this issue, Fox News did get a question in.

And?

 

[waif]

Isn't selecting reporters on the spot just as prone to bias as a list made in advance? Other than a random draw, I don't know how there isn't some favoritism. And before anyone gets too carried away on this issue, Fox News did get a question in.

Not true at all, tbh. Selecting on the spot is subject to bias as a convenience sample but nowhere near to the degree that a list chosen based purely on favoritism is.

 

[Dak]

Was there something specific you wanted me to see here, or is this just for future reference?



Didn't realise paranoia was running that high.


(p.s. - response to your long post coming when I have time)

Bullet Shortage

Apparently paranoia is running high countrywide. Walmart is still pretty much empty here, unless you need .22 or bird-shot.

 

[Achtland]

 

[Dak]

Obama signing more pork

I like how the administration is excusing him breaking his campaign promises "because the Bush administration left us with a deficit". What does that have to do with breaking your promise about signing stuff with pork in it?

 

[Dak]

A nice summary of all the fucked-up things done by Bush that Obama has un-fucked so far:



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=7042171&page=1



In His First 50 Days, President Obama Rapidly Reverses Bush Policies
From Gitmo to Stem Cell Research, New President Veers Away From W's Policies
By HUMA KHAN
March 10, 2009 —

President Obama may not have changed the decor of the Oval Office, but he's quickly taking steps to overturn policies that marked the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Soon after being elected last year, the 44th president advised his transition team to draft an executive order to close down the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay, a move assailed by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Since entering the White House, Obama has quickly taken action to revoke additional Bush-era policies.

The swift-moving president says he is trying to fulfill his campaign promises and supporters applaud his efforts. Critics say he could be trying to do too much too soon.

Here is a list of the Bush administration policies and laws that Obama has reversed so far:

Allowing Funding of Stem Cell Research and Abortion Groups

Stem Cell Research

In his latest rollback of Bush administration policies, President Obama signed an executive order Monday lifting the 7½-year ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and a memorandum covering all scientific research. In a less-than-subtle criticism of Bush's ban, Obama said, "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent," the president added before signing the order.

Obama said throughout his presidential campaign that he would overturn the ban if elected. President Bush banned federal funding for such research in August 2001, citing "moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryonic stem cell research. Even the most noble ends don't justify the means." Nearly six in ten Americans support loosening restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. Proponents of stem cell research say Obama's order is a promising sign that progress can be made after a more-than-eight-year stalemate, while others say it is only a tiny step. Anti-abortion groups say the research is unethical and unreliable.

We shouldn't be federally funding this, not for moral reasons but because the government has no business being involved in health research of this nature.
If it needs to be done let industry pay for it instead of making everyone pay for it.

Global Gag Rule

The debate on whether U.S. government should fund international family planning groups that provide abortions or related services has been brewing for decades. The "Mexico City Policy" that was signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1984 was overturned by Bill Clinton in 1993 and restored by Bush in 2001. So, it was only a matter of time before the next Democratic president also rescinded his predecessor's rule.

Obama overturned the policy on Jan. 23, just days after he took the oath of office. "For the past eight years, [the restrictions] have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries," Obama said in a statement. Some international family planning groups hailed the decision, saying that Bush's ban discriminated against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion, but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS. Obama's move was also met by criticism by Republicans and anti-abortion groups.

We are giving aid to countries when we have how much debt and are increasing the debt by trillions more? This is DUMB. When America has it's owned problems fixed we can worry reducing the number of Jesus and Jorges in Mexico.

Provider Conscience Rule

Breaking with Bush on health care, Obama wants to give more power back to the patients on whether health care providers should provide controversial services. The administration revoked the Bush-era "Provider Conscience" rule that created more regulations to prevent those who refuse to hire doctors and nurses opposed to abortion rights from receiving federal funds. The move was applauded by abortion rights advocacy groups, who say the limits restricted patients' rights.

President has no right being involved in this anyway so it's a good repeal.

War Games: From Gitmo to the Casket Ban

Closing Detainee Center at Guantanamo

In his first major step in office, Obama signed an executive order closing down the detainee center at the Guantanamo Bay military facility within a year, and established new guidelines on interrogation methods and the treatment of detainees. In another order signed on the same day, Obama mandated all U.S. interrogators in all agencies to adhere to rules in the Army Field Manual, and the president also called for the shut down of CIA detention centers around the world.

The orders call for some detainees to be transferred to U.S. prisons, and others to be transferred overseas. The move marked a sharp departure from Bush-era policies and even provoked criticism from Cheney. But Obama, who reiterated during his campaign the idea that the U.S. does not torture -- called Gitmo a "sad chapter in American history" -- and pledged to shutter it as soon as he could, said the country will deal with terrorism "in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

It hasn't happened yet, so this shouldn't even be listed until Gitmo is a pile of rubble.

Casket Ban

The Pentagon lifted the controversial ban on the photographing of flag-draped caskets of America's war dead, reversing the policy that was implemented by George Bush in 2001. Critics say the ban hid the human cost of war and soon after taking over the White House, Obama asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to review its impact on military families. Under the new rules, families will decide whether to grant media access to caskets of the dead and the military will suggest guidelines for how much coverage to allow. In rescinding the Bush-era policy on Feb. 26, Gates said he was "never comfortable" with the ban to begin with.

Repealing this is good, but the damage is already done.

Troops Drawdown in Iraq

Partially fulfilling one of his major campaign promises that probably is one of the sharpest reversals from Bush's policy, Obama ordered the drawdown of troops in Iraq at a late February pit stop in Camp Lejune, N.C. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," the president said on Feb. 27 in a gathering of troops.

During his presidential run, Obama promised to withdraw all U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office, but under his current plan, the number of 142,000 troops will be drawn down to 35,000-50,000 within 19 months. At the same time, Obama has committed more troops to Afghanistan, fulfilling the request from generals who want to step up the effort against a rising insurgency. Iraq, unsurprisingly, is one of the new administration's top agenda items. The president met with his close advisers on his first day in office to discuss the drawdown.

A. It doesn't matter, we already accomplished the main objective in Iraq.
B. We are still leaving tens of thousands of troops in country so who gives a fuck whether its 150 or 50 thousand. We haven't pulled out and Obama has no intention of pulling out. Piled on top of this fact is we are turning around and sending most of these troops into Afghanistan. Obama is doing the same bullshit as Bush.

Defending John Yoo

But the Obama administration hasn't completely torn itself away from Bush's policies. The president's Justice Department is defending former Bush official John Yoo, so-called author of the "torture memo," and who is being sued by Jose Padilla, a suspected terrorist who says Yoo's memos on interrogation policies led to his detention and torture. "This administration has made no secret of the fact that it disagrees with the previous administration's approach to many legal issues in the national security arena," Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Justice Department, said in a written statement defending the decision. "Nevertheless, the Department of Justice generally defends employees and former employees in lawsuits that are filed in connection to their official duties."

This doesn't even mean anything. Talk is cheap. I guaruntee that torture still happens.

Environment and Labor Policies

Endangered Species Act

The president authorized full scientific reviews of projects that might harm endangered wildlife and plants. Obama's memorandum overrides the Bush administration regulation that limits scientific reviews of projects that could harm endangered species.

While signing the act on March 3, Obama chided Bush's policies, saying that "For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife. We should be looking for ways to improve it, not weaken it." The Obama team had promised the change during the presidential campaign, a move welcomed by environmentalists who say the government's protection does not go far enough.

I have mixed opinions on this so I'll leave it alone. While I am for conservational efforts, the way it gets done is unconstitutional.

Allowing States to Set Fuel Efficiency Standards

Obama started a process and asked the Environmental Protection Agency to look at allowing California and 13 other states the right to set their own, stricter, automobile emissions and fuel efficiency standards, a plea by the states that was rejected by the Bush administration. This was just one of the first steps in altering the environment policy from that of the Bush administration.

Obama also directed Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, to finalize the fuel efficiency standards for cars for 2011 and to make recommendations for beyond that year, an action expected to lead to stricter fuel efficiency standards. The president is expected to continue taking further such steps away from his predecessor's policies. The Obama administration is also seeking tougher regulations on mercury emissions and changing the way the Bush team approached the topic.

THE FEDERAL DERIVES ITS POWER FROM THE STATES!!! #$@%#^#&$
How nice of King Obama to allow his subjects some self-management. :Smug:

Labor Laws

Only ten days in office, Obama signed three executive orders that he said would "level the playing field" for labor unions and that would make unions easy to organize. Obama reversed a Bush order requiring federal contractors to post notice that workers can limit financial support of unions serving as their only bargaining representatives. Additionally, in undoing Bush's policies, Obama ordered that federal contractors offer jobs to current workers when contracts change and that federal contractors be prevented from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers deciding whether to form a union and engage in collective bargaining. Obama's first law signed was also labor-related. The Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill was signed into law Jan. 29 and sought to end pay disparities between men and women.

We've already gone over unions before. If he wanted to make a change, he would urge Congress to ban unions.

Oil and Gas Leases

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced in February that the government would withdraw oil and gas leases that were offered on 77 parcels of public land for drilling near national parks in Utah by the Bush administration and that are currently in court. "In its last weeks in office, the Bush administration rushed ahead to sell oil and gas leases at the doorstep of some of our nation's most treasured landscapes in Utah," Salazar said. "We need to responsibly develop our oil and gas supplies to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we must do so in a thoughtful and balanced way that allows us to protect our signature landscapes and cultural resources in places like Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Nine Mile Canyon, for future generations." The leases are for a total of 103,225 acres. Salazar also scrapped leases for oil-shale development on federal land in Colorado and Wyoming. Salazar has also rejected a Bush plan to open areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil drilling, criticizing the previous administration for "foot dragging."

We need energy independency, and whatever it would take to get there should be put above maybe the loss of a canyon as a sight-see. Not that the Bush deal was the right direction either. There was no information in the article regarding the details of the leases as far as what the impact involved was/ who was getting the money etc etc.

Obama's reversals of his predecessor's policies are a sign that the new administration is trying to make good on its campaign promise of change. Just Monday, Obama wrote in a memo to heads of executive branch departments and agencies that he will sign presidential statements, but do so more sparingly than Bush, who came under fire for using hundreds of these statements to tell government officials to ignore parts of the law that it believed were unconstitutional restrictions on the president's executive power, most notably on national security issues. "I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," he wrote.

Bush did exactly what he wanted to do, and now Obama is doing the same thing, all I see him repealing is either things that really don't matter (like signs that places are required to post) or things that won't be of any benefit to him (he doesn't need as many troops in Iraq any more.....but he needs them in Afghanistan!)

The new policies he is enacting are still for bigger and bigger government, while running us into debt faster than even Bush. I didn't even think that was possible.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I think you just like to hear yourself talk.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

We shouldn't be federally funding this, not for moral reasons but because the government has no business being involved in health research of this nature.
If it needs to be done let industry pay for it instead of making everyone pay for it.

Not sure why you think this is more of a problem than other scientific endeavors if not on moral grounds. Whether or not now is an appropriate time to fund stem cell research, though, there shouldn't have been a ban on it.

We are giving aid to countries when we have how much debt and are increasing the debt by trillions more? This is DUMB. When America has it's owned problems fixed we can worry reducing the number of Jesus and Jorges in Mexico.

Again, whether or not we should fund it at this moment, there shouldn't be a ban on the funding in the first place.

A. It doesn't matter, we already accomplished the main objective in Iraq.
B. We are still leaving tens of thousands of troops in country so who gives a fuck whether its 150 or 50 thousand. We haven't pulled out and Obama has no intention of pulling out. Piled on top of this fact is we are turning around and sending most of these troops into Afghanistan. Obama is doing the same bullshit as Bush.

I'm holding off judgment on the Afghanistan thing for now, since presumably it won't go on for nearly as long as the Iraq mess did. Just grant Obama that he's been left with a massively shitty situation over there.

I have mixed opinions on this so I'll leave it alone. While I am for conservational efforts, the way it gets done is unconstitutional.

I don't see how this is that big of a deal Constitutionally, unless there's somehow a massive outcry against scientific review of endangered species like with gun control or drug policy. As long as the ball happens to be in the federal court on this, it's better that it take a stance of actually giving a shit about the environment, unlike what Bush did.

THE FEDERAL DERIVES ITS POWER FROM THE STATES!!! #$@%#^#&$
How nice of King Obama to allow his subjects some self-management. :Smug:

Yes, we're well aware of how overbearing the federal government is. Regardless, that was a shitty policy on Bush's part that Obama was right to overturn.

We've already gone over unions before. If he wanted to make a change, he would urge Congress to ban unions.

Yeah... I didn't really follow your union debate from before, and am still not too interested in it, so I'll let someone else tackle that with you.

We need energy independency, and whatever it would take to get there should be put above maybe the loss of a canyon as a sight-see. Not that the Bush deal was the right direction either. There was no information in the article regarding the details of the leases as far as what the impact involved was/ who was getting the money etc etc.

Yeah, more details on this would be nice. Still, we should really be focusing on making plug-in electic cars mainstream rather than drilling every last drop of oil out of our land that we can.

Bush did exactly what he wanted to do, and now Obama is doing the same thing, all I see him repealing is either things that really don't matter (like signs that places are required to post) or things that won't be of any benefit to him (he doesn't need as many troops in Iraq any more.....but he needs them in Afghanistan!)

The difference between what Bush did and what Obama's doing is that the latter makes enormously more sense. Anyway, there are certainly more important changes he could be bringing, but of course he's only been President for a month and a half. The point of the article is that he's gotten a lot done in a short span of time, and that's a good sign for the years ahead.

The new policies he is enacting are still for bigger and bigger government, while running us into debt faster than even Bush. I didn't even think that was possible.

Thanks for overlooking the fact that the recession is leaving millions of people out of work, and that many of those people will need help to get by until the economy recovers. At any rate though, I will agree that Obama does not seem to be putting forth a real solution for the recession - though apparently there's an international summit to discuss finance reforms going on in April.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I honestly don't really think he can personally do very much about the recession.

 

[MasterOLightning]

These things take time. The news that Citi made money so far this year is positive. One would hope this means people were able to take out loans and pay them back, or that they are selling off foreclosed homes. Of course, knowing banks, it's possible the fee'd the shit out of people.

People in Congress who are saying Obama is trying to do too many things at once need to die.

 

[Dak]

Not sure why you think this is more of a problem than other scientific endeavors if not on moral grounds. Whether or not now is an appropriate time to fund stem cell research, though, there shouldn't have been a ban on it.



Again, whether or not we should fund it at this moment, there shouldn't be a ban on the funding in the first place.

These two go together. There shouldn't have been a ban on federal funding, but there shouldn't be federal funding. No "this moment". Tax dollars should not be funding either thing. How about all this research money and foreign aid being used to help the people in America, or revitalize our infrastructure, our create renewable energy jobs, etc etc. But no, we are trying to teach Jose how to use a condom instead, or fund scientific breakthroughs that will be too expensive for the majority of the people who paid the taxes to fund it.

I'm holding off judgment on the Afghanistan thing for now, since presumably it won't go on for nearly as long as the Iraq mess did. Just grant Obama that he's been left with a massively shitty situation over there.

Maybe you didn't realize we have been in Afghanistan longer than Iraq already. The only shitty situation Obama should have to deal with is 100% pullout, and that includes all our foreign bases in Asia and Europe as well.

I don't see how this is that big of a deal Constitutionally, unless there's somehow a massive outcry against scientific review of endangered species like with gun control or drug policy. As long as the ball happens to be in the federal court on this, it's better that it take a stance of actually giving a shit about the environment, unlike what Bush did.

I am talking about how a lot of the national parks etc. have been in essence handed to the UN with little fanfare.

Yes, we're well aware of how overbearing the federal government is. Regardless, that was a shitty policy on Bush's part that Obama was right to overturn.

The problem is no state is going to be is going to be allowed to not have emission standards(or at least lower than the federal standard), they just can have stricter standards. It's unconstitutional bullshit, just like the previous law.

Yeah, more details on this would be nice. Still, we should really be focusing on making plug-in electic cars mainstream rather than drilling every last drop of oil out of our land that we can.

Until electric vehicles can be charged in 5 minutes to go for 400miles and haul 10000+ lbs, or do serious offroading, I personally have no interest in them. They are mostly impractical outside of your big city work commute.
We still haven't even come close to making vehicles as gas-efficient as we could and I am sure that is because of backroom deals between the auto industry and gas companies, or at best because of general laziness and greed of the auto industry, especially in the US.

The difference between what Bush did and what Obama's doing is that the latter makes enormously more sense. Anyway, there are certainly more important changes he could be bringing, but of course he's only been President for a month and a half. The point of the article is that he's gotten a lot done in a short span of time, and that's a good sign for the years ahead.

As stated before, it's not true change because it's still growing the government just like Bush did. Bush just used the "terror" crisis and Obama is using the economic crisis to do whatever he wants.

Thanks for overlooking the fact that the recession is leaving millions of people out of work, and that many of those people will need help to get by until the economy recovers. At any rate though, I will agree that Obama does not seem to be putting forth a real solution for the recession - though apparently there's an international summit to discuss finance reforms going on in April.

Obama can't really fix the recession, but what he is doing is running up a rediculous debt that is going to have to be paid back at some point, and if these policies don't work, the bad recession we would be having will instead just be a delayed greatest depression.

I am not overlooking the people out of work, I get out of the Marines this year and I will be hitting the job market at a bad time, so I am quite aware of the employment situation. This does not excuse running up the deficit.

As far as I am concerned the difference between Obama and Bush is the difference between two killers who use different weapons. You are still dead whether you got stabbed to death or gunned down.

I think you just like to hear yourself talk.

If that was the case I would be making ML type posts in every thread possible, since apparently it isn't ban worthy.