Obama Olympic bid for his Chicago buddies = FAIL!

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

Could you please point us to a post in which you found something other than fault in the previous President?

I'm sure if you searched my previous posts you would find posts. Specifically, I agreed with Bush with TARP and the things that his admin has done in increasing aid to developing nations. Now its your turn, point to instance where you have found something good in the current president.

. I don't have a problem with complaints, as long as you are consistent. But lets be clear: I think Bush screwed up big time. The economy crumbled right before his eyes last couple of years and his admin stood on the sidelines waiting for the hand off.

If you search my thread history, i think you'll find that i try to give credit where credit is due, but when the fault is that of the "opposition", i don't make 3 threads a day like some people here do. Its pretty clear I have a preference, but i make my case without being silly and inflammatory. You have never seen my starting posts proclaiming that some guy who was in high school with Bush says he smoked crack with Bush. Do you think an impartial party would say the same about your posts?

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

I do believe that the left more often than not argues with emotion rather than reason. Watch a few days of C-SPAN 2 of debates in the US Senate, invariably when a senator brings uses a visual aid and it is a picture that senator is a democrats and when it is a chart with figures it is a Repub.

The left plays upon the emotion of compassion.
The right plays upon the emotion of fear.

No difference. Both play on the politics of emotion.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

I was careful not to use 100% certain, because there is always "force majeure" which can mess up even the best laid plans.

In politics, especially when you are the President and your every move is watched and communicated to the masses, you need to be as certain as possible that what you are doing will be both a success, and is also the best use of your time.

I'm not suggesting that as a message to the world we say don't try unless you can win. I've tried lots of things that I don't win at, yet continue to try anyway (tennis, for one!). But my inability to beat my opponent in tennis carries no other ramifications for me other than dealing with a gloating friend for a few minutes. But when a President puts himself on the line and comes back with defeat, it echos far more loudly.

If this was trade negotiations with China or something, I would agree with you.

But this is the Olympics. Either we get them in 2016, or we don't.

A President doesn't treat nuclear arms negotiations the same way a President would treat a book-reading with school children. There is time and place appropriateness for triangulation and the application of the lessons from "The Art of War".

And as I stated before, the Olympic spirit is NOT the appropriate place to go all Sun-Tzu. The spirit of the Olympics is to hang it out on the line, often in the face of great personal challenges, and to do your personal best you can. Obama honored that spirit in the appropriate time and place. There is no honor lost in doing that.

Now you might argue that just because the right-wing picked up on it as an attack point, that it cost Obama politically in the eyes of rightwingers. And because of these attacks, he shouldn't have tried. But I will argue just the opposite. That by fighting for his country and giving his best, and then having the right-wing cheer AGAINST this country, that the political damage was actually done to the right-wing. Who came off to many outside of the insular right-wing circle as reactionary and un-American. Had Obama not gone, and we had not gotten the Olympics, we would be in a thread started by Sayemthree about how Obama doesn't love America because he didn't go argue our case in front of the Olympic committee, and other countries did. Everyone is aware that there is a sector of the US who will attack the President regardless of what decisions he makes.

It would be insane for Obama to make his decisions based upon what this sector of the US will use against him politically, instead of what is the right decision. To claim that he made the wrong choice because the people who always claim he makes the wrong choice no matter what, is attacking him now, is no way to run a country.

Obama made the appropriate effort at the appropriate time for the appropriate event. In the Olympic spirit, Obama threw it on the line and gave the Olympics his 110% effort, and the United States was beat by a competitor with a better bid. Nothing wrong there.

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by Nixon

If this was trade negotiations with China or something, I would agree with you.

But this is the Olympics. Either we get them in 2016, or we don't.

A President doesn't treat nuclear arms negotiations the same way a President would treat a book-reading with school children. There is time and place appropriateness for triangulation and the application of the lessons from "The Art of War".

And as I stated before, the Olympic spirit is NOT the appropriate place to go all Sun-Tzu. The spirit of the Olympics is to hang it out on the line, often in the face of great personal challenges, and to do your personal best you can. Obama honored that spirit in the appropriate time and place. There is no honor lost in doing that.

Now you might argue that just because the right-wing picked up on it as an attack point, that it cost Obama politically in the eyes of rightwingers. And because of these attacks, he shouldn't have tried. But I will argue just the opposite. That by fighting for his country and giving his best, and then having the right-wing cheer AGAINST this country, that the political damage was actually done to the right-wing. Who came off to many outside of the insular right-wing circle as reactionary and un-American. Had Obama not gone, and we had not gotten the Olympics, we would be in a thread started by Sayemthree about how Obama doesn't love America because he didn't go argue our case in front of the Olympic committee, and other countries did. Everyone is aware that there is a sector of the US who will attack the President regardless of what decisions he makes.

It would be insane for Obama to make his decisions based upon what this sector of the US will use against him politically, instead of what is the right decision. To claim that he made the wrong choice because the people who always claim he makes the wrong choice no matter what, is attacking him now, is no way to run a country.

Obama made the appropriate effort at the appropriate time for the appropriate event. In the Olympic spirit, Obama threw it on the line and gave the Olympics his 110% effort, and the United States was beat by a competitor with a better bid. Nothing wrong there.

My main problem is that, with so many issues facing us at home and abroad (healthcare, Iran, the economy, etc.), was this the best way to spend his time and political clout? Even if Sun-Tzu wasn't appropriate for use during the bid for Chicago, I'm certainly surprised that there was so much backlash against him for which he appeared to be unprepared (Sun-Tzu would have helped here). I also am suspect about him pitching for Chicago, given his connections to that city. Combine the two, and I can't help but think he's lost a bit of credibility, even among those who support him.

That said, I'm sure there would be criticisms if it had been any other city. Personally, this isn't a deal-breaker for me -- just an interesting point to discuss. =)

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

My main problem is that, with so many issues facing us at home and abroad (healthcare, Iran, the economy, etc.), was this the best way to spend his time and political clout? Even if Sun-Tzu wasn't appropriate for use during the bid for Chicago, I'm certainly surprised that there was so much backlash against him for which he appeared to be unprepared (Sun-Tzu would have helped here). I also am suspect about him pitching for Chicago, given his connections to that city. Combine the two, and I can't help but think he's lost a bit of credibility, even among those who support him.

That said, I'm sure there would be criticisms if it had been any other city. Personally, this isn't a deal-breaker for me -- just an interesting point to discuss. =)

I understand your point, but i don't think anyone can argue that Obama isnt working extremely hard. Many would say he is tackling too many issues at one time. I'm not sure i'd blame a guy for working on a pet project when he really should be taking a week's vacation or took a trip to a ranch

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by Nixon

The left plays upon the emotion of compassion.
The right plays upon the emotion of fear.

No difference. Both play on the politics of emotion.

Was it the right playing to fears of shredding the Constitution, loss of health care, or the coming of the Great Depression? I must have missed that.

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

I understand your point, but i don't think anyone can argue that Obama isnt working extremely hard. Many would say he is tackling too many issues at one time. I'm not sure i'd blame a guy for working on a pet project when he really should be taking a week's vacation or took a trip to a ranch

I can see your point.

Let it be known that I voted for Obama -- but from what I've seen so far, I'm not so sure that my vote was the right one. I'm getting more conservative as I get older, at least as far as economic policies are concerned. Perhaps it's because I voted for him that I'm being particularly harsh on him, when I feel that his attention should be directed elsewhere.

I certainly don't want him to fail, as some might want, except where I feel that his policies or positions are the failures themselves.

I think my issue is that I voted more along social policy lines, while I now realize that to me it's the economic issues that are more important.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by nostrum09

I can see your point.

Let it be known that I voted for Obama -- but from what I've seen so far, I'm not so sure that my vote was the right one. I'm getting more conservative as I get older, at least as far as economic policies are concerned. Perhaps it's because I voted for him that I'm being particularly harsh on him, when I feel that his attention should be directed elsewhere.

I certainly don't want him to fail, as some might want, except where I feel that his policies or positions are the failures themselves.

I think my issue is that I voted more along social policy lines, while I now realize that to me it's the economic issues that are more important.

I understand where you are coming from, but judging any 4 year term based on less than 1 year is premature, particularly given the circumstances (btw, i said the same thing about Bush). Also the alternative (McCain) had one economic plan--cut taxes. As much as many conservatives want you to believe otherwise, tax cuts won't pull us out of a recession. The US Economic policy is a growing organism that will have to be tweaked over the next 6-10 years to spur growth and guard from inflation. We all know that we can't increase spending year over year at this rate, but it was important to do so for the short term.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

I understand where you are coming from, but judging any 4 year term based on less than 1 year is premature, particularly given the circumstances (btw, i said the same thing about Bush). Also the alternative (McCain) had one economic plan--cut taxes. As much as many conservatives want you to believe otherwise, tax cuts won't pull us out of a recession. The US Economic policy is a growing organism that will have to be tweaked over the next 6-10 years to spur growth and guard from inflation. We all know that we can't increase spending year over year at this rate, but it was important to do so for the short term.

Funny you say that about McCain because as I remember it, it was Obama promising a tax cut for 95% of the people.

Please explain to me how government spending $800 billion dollars is a better way to get out of a recession than allowing the American people to keep a similar amount of money?

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

Funny you say that about McCain because as I remember it, it was Obama promising a tax cut for 95% of the people.

Please explain to me how government spending $800 billion dollars is a better way to get out of a recession than allowing the American people to keep a similar amount of money?

We seem to be headed back towards Keynesian economic policies, and while I think the rush to pass the stimulus bill was a terrible mistake, had we taken the time to examine the bill and made sure that the money was going to true "shovel ready" projects and not all the pork that made its way in, I would have been more in support of the stimulus as opposed to additional tax cuts.

Tax cuts are good in a general sense, but now, with people scared about the economy and the safety of their job, any tax cuts that left consumers with more money would far more likely either be saved or used to pay down debt. While both of these are good things, neither really does much to stimulate the economy, and so would not solve the more major issue of unemployment. However, by [properly] putting money into government financed projects, we could see a gradual pick up in hiring as states and businesses gain access to funds specifically designated for projects.

Perhaps the best approach, assuming an ideal world where politicians aren't so likely to pander to their constituents with pork, would have been to use some of the stimulus to cover a smaller tax cut while providing an employment boost though government spending.

Long-term, however, and especially if we wish to really get our economy to be the envy of the world again, I am strongly in favor of a repeal of the 16th Amendment and instituting the FairTax as currently proposed.

[nostrum09]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

I understand where you are coming from, but judging any 4 year term based on less than 1 year is premature, particularly given the circumstances (btw, i said the same thing about Bush). Also the alternative (McCain) had one economic plan--cut taxes. As much as many conservatives want you to believe otherwise, tax cuts won't pull us out of a recession. The US Economic policy is a growing organism that will have to be tweaked over the next 6-10 years to spur growth and guard from inflation. We all know that we can't increase spending year over year at this rate, but it was important to do so for the short term.

Agreed as to government spending, as noted in my response to shpirate87.

My opinion of Obama, while perhaps premature as it concerns his handling of the economy, is also very strongly shaped by his position on healthcare, for which I have a very strong dislike of his (and the Democrat leadership in general) plan.