Obama's Failures
 

Since we have a thread that's essentially just a compilation of whatever bad news there is for Romney, I figured we ought to have a thread that does the opposite: that simply lists the failings and gaffes of the Obama administration.

I'll probably go back in time to highlight some of the big ones, since those get conveniently ignored most of the time, but let's start with something both recent and ongoing: the administration was saying, for a solid week, that the attacks in Libya were spontaneous, and not planned or coordinated. They said this in forceful, repeated language. It came from the White House and, particularly, from Their Ambassador to the United Nations:

The White House itself said the same basic thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nds0u7WVoE

The idea that this was just a riotous protest over a video that got out of hand was repeated again and again. Libyan government officials have repeatedly contradicted it.

But in keeping with all of their public communications since this happened, they're already starting to backtrack from this:

So, for those keeping score, here's the sequence of events: video causes uproar, Embassy releases a statement, the riots start, Embassy reiterates the statement, Americans (including a diplomat) are killed, the President says Egypt isn't our ally, the State Department says they are, the President says they sort of are and sort of aren't, the Libyans say the attacks were planned, the White House says the attacks weren't planned, the Ambassador to the UN says the attacks weren't planned, and then the White House says--guess what?--the attacks may have been planned. Totally schizo.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Potentially worse than the schizo messaging is the run-up to the attack. This is delicate, for obvious reasons, but a report in The Independent claims that Libyan officials warned the U.S. of an impending attack.

The government denies it...sort of. They issued a non-denial denial, in which they said they didn't have "intelligence" indicating the same, which you'll notice does not actually deny that the Libyan government issued any kind of warning. And it's important, because one of the focuses of the questioning is why there was such scant security there in the first place.

What's more, the State Department put out a memo specifically downplaying any potential threat:

I take the memo at its word, but what's damning is that they've since removed it from their site, presumably because it's existence became politically embarrassing after the attacks. As is often the case, trying to hide things makes them stand out all the more.

I also forgot to mention that, several days ago, the White House literally said it would stop answering questions about the attacks for the time being.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

I have a question for you Yoda, you might have answered this for all I know.

Do you vote for the person, or the party? If Sarah Palin were up against Obama, would you vote for her because of her party positions and look past her antics? Or if someone like that was running would you decide to vote for the other person?

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Generally speaking, I vote for the ideas. I think the personality part is overemphasized and hard to discern through so many media filters, and easily faked, besides. Policy comes first, always.

There are extreme cases where someone might have much better ideas but just be so generally incompetent that they still wouldn't make a good President. In those cases I'd probably vote for a third party. Especially since, in those cases, it's probably pretty likely a third party would make more noise than usual.

Yeah, it's clear that what's spontanous are the blunders of this current administration. Even in defending their non-action they appear unco-ordinated.
I mean come on, 9/11, and there is not a comprehensive defense system in place for our Embassies in the middle east and especially in the countries of recent regime changes. It doesn't take a war strategist or a political science major to understand these vulnerabilities and take adequate precociouns.
Obama even saying that these attacks were spontanious and unplanned makes him even look less competent as it is easier to defend ourselves against a bunch of amateurs then against organized Alkaida.
So, it makes one wonder if the Embassies were intended as sacrificial lambs for some sort of retaliation that would add new spark to his re-election.

In this country we have always been a sucker for the cult of personality in choosing our leaders. What I can't understand is choosing leaders that have no clear and defined policies.
Obama's a perfect example. He came in because of his speaking ability and charisma along with a vague promise of change. The fact that he was part black didn't hurt either, as a very high percentage of our fighting forces are black and we were engaged in war and the very idea of a first time black president resonated well with the times and push for total equality. If I was given a choice, I would have rather gone with Collin Powell, certainly a hell of a lot better versed in foreign affairs and war.

Yeah, and we got the same thing from the Bush Administration about 911, there were some kind of warnings, but not specific enough to take action on. So what?

You want to play the blame game for what happened, go ahead. But I doubt you were playing that game when Bush was on the receiving end.

I haven't seen anything from Mitt Romney in the last few weeks to give me confidence he would be any better in a crisis situation. Just the opposite.

With hindsight should the Obama Administration been more diligent, yes, obviously. But we have not had another terrorist act under American soil in the years he has been in office, and Bin Laden is dead, so he must be doing something right.

Or maybe you agree with the ads, that have apparently been a big dud, that Obama doesn't deserve any credit for his death.

And Romney criticized the time and money being spent to get Bin Laden.

Get used to more failures from the Obama Administration because he is going to be around for another four years.

Because the American people have seen the alternative and they think it would be worse.

News flash Will, Bin Ladin was out of the game, enjoying his wives in Pakistan. His own people gave him up. They gave him to the Seals on a silver plater and Obama took all the credit.
What's telling is that for the past two years Ayman Al-Zawahiri has been running Alkeida. What I would ask is why is he only number 8 on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list.

Here:

Re: Obama's Failures
 

His biggest failure was promising (essentially perhaps not in so many words) universal healthcare, then after being elected to office with a majority of his own party, he spent an entire year debating something that should have theoretically no trouble passing, then ending up passing essentially a re-worked version of a 90's Republican healthcare plan, which requires citizens who can't afford insurance to be penalized. Not to mention, it doesn't in anyway help control cost of treatment. Then again this is all assuming there was any actual intention of going the public option route, which is questionable.

Yes, certainly one of the economic failures.
To me his biggest failure is failing to secure US Embassies in the Middle East on 9/11 of this year.
He should have had 20 or so Special Ops guys stationed at each Embassy.
They could have held-off initial assaults at least until more help came and if the attacks were so large in scope to be able to overcome them, Delta teams could have been there in a reasonable amount of time, air dropped in, and if by God that wasn't enough, then certainly a full scale invasion by the US would have been justified.
Our Embassies are our sovereign territories. Woe be unto those who dare encroach them.
We need a leader that's ready to respond and do whatever it takes to let our enemies know the full extent of our power.

You do realize that if the US declared war for every embassy of ours that has been attacked over the decades, our national spending would be ballooned exponentially in military spending alone, right? I'm saying as a matter of practicality, invading entire nations for the actions of a few thousand citizens is like blowing up your neighbor's house because his kids killed your cat. I'm just saying, it's not a proportional act to do so.

We would need to do it only once, after going through the above-mentioned options. Believe me, that message would be a strong preventive measure for any subsequent attack.
In the mean time, we could certainly fortify our embassies or are we just going to alow whoever to take pot shots at us unpunished?
Also, for every country that allowed an attack on our Embassy, I would withdraw all aid.
Don't you think that it's a joke, here we are in recession and we are still giving money to our enemies and those who are not helping against our enemies.

You mean like how the two wars in the Middleast has made Islamic extremists stop planning attacks?

Nope, I want to play the "let's ask some basic questions about what happened" game. 9/11 was heavily investigated and a lot of people asked a lot of questions about it, as they well should have. That's not happening much here, and when it does, the administration is currently refusing to answer, anyway.

Given their utterly schizophrenic response to this crisis (detailed above), it's all the more important that this happen. They've completely bungled the response.

Sure is amazing that everything you see somehow reinforces everything you believed before you saw it.

This is a thread about Obama's record. You can't refute this stuff with your tired, predictable line about how whatever Obama's done, Romney's (surprise!) worse. You decided it'd be a good use of the other thread to post every random negative story about Romney you could find and pretend all the negative stuff about Obama didn't exist. So guess what? That works both ways. I realize it'll probably be intensely hard for you to formulate actual defenses of this stuff, but that's the thread.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...it_dog_gif.gif

The Washington Examiner has a series of articles up about some of Obama's dealings before he became a Senator. Pretty eye-opening stuff. I knew he was involved with Tony Rezko (and it's shocking how little attention that gets). But I figured that was pretty much the worst of it. Might not be so:

Of course, Chicago is notorious for its corruption, so nobody will be surprised that this kind of stuff happened. The big takeaway is not that this is special, but that it's depressingly common. And that it's apparently not very easy to rise in that Chicago political culture without tolerating and/or faciliating it at some point.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

The people who are most capable of attaining power are almost always the least suitable at using it.

I've pretty much given up on politics. Human beings are too easily corrupted, and their lives are far too short and fragile. There will never be meaningful and lasting change for the better.

So call me whatever label you like, whatever suits the agenda. I'm just a human being now.

I'm going to enjoy the bread and circuses while I still can.

I have news for you; but it isn't news beause you already know it. I don't repeat every negative story about Mitt Romney. Not by a longshot. You want me to list what I have left out? What I have focused on are two stories that have dominated the news and have even Republicans questioning his judgement.

If the purpose of this thread is let's change the subject and dump on Obama instead, fine. But you show me where in that thread there is some kind of rule Obama can't be criticized?

This thread wouldn't exist if the Romney campaign wasn't in a death spiral.

Oh, my!

What exactly is shocking?

Yeah, the "every" is clearly hyperbole, guy. What's not hyperbole is that you selectively post only things negative for one side, and ignore all the many, many failures on the other. And we both know why: when you have a terrible record, all you can do is try to change the subject. So I'm putting it out there front and center, and you are quite welcome to try to defend it if you want. Good luck with that.

Uh, you mean with the fact that he defended a slumlord who failed to provide heating for poor people and then kicked them out? Gee, I dunno. I can't imagine why anyone would find that shocking.

A lawyer defended someone who did something bad like breaking the law. This was so shocking nobody thought it was worth making a big deal about the first time he ran for president.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

There's that ol' media-based circular logic: if people didn't make a big deal out of it, or didn't do their due diligence in examining the candidate, it is therefore automatically not a big deal.

Work on that logic, chap.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

There's that ol' media-based circular logic: if people didn't make a big deal out of it, or didn't do their due diligence in examining the candidate, it is therefore automatically not a big deal.

Work on that logic, chap.

No, that is not what I do. But it has become real clear your attitude is Mitt can do no harm, but if Obama breathes funny, watch out! I have been following the main media stories of the moment and they are not about a slum landlord defended by Obama and don't regard what we currently know about the deaths in Libya to be monumental failures of the Obama Administration. That is not where the media focus has been. You want equal time for mistakes? Fine, but they haven't been equal time in media impact.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Lawyers defend bad people.

Do you really believe anybody cares at this point Obama defended a slum landlord?

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Lincoln defended bad people also.

Mitt can do plenty of harm; I've got lots of problems with them. But Obama's already screwing up the job he's running for. And since you don't post anything about that, I'm going to. Simple as that. You can try to defend it if you like, but I expect that without the transparent fallback of complaining about his opponent, you'll probably find it rather difficult.

This is the whole point. The lack of media focus is part of the complaint. Pointing to it isn't a defense of anything.

This also isn't accurate, anyway. First, you didn't breathe a word of question or complaint about the schizo communications after the Embassy attacks, or ask one question about it. Nor did you say anything about their total walkback of what they've been saying about it being coordinated all week long. So even your choice of want to talk about within stories is selective.

Second, you're just talking about the last two weeks, not the campaign as a whole. There've been tons of other things in the media negative for Obama that you don't go near with a ten-foot-pole; not a single employment report, cost-benefit analysis' of the stimulus, unemployment records set, trillion-dollar deficits, gunrunning, stonewalling, etc. All of these have been in the news prominently at one point or another, and you've never spoken a word about any of them. So it's ridiculous that you would try to pretend that your focus is just a reflection of what's in the news. That's not even close to true.

So, I'm going to keep posting about all those stories you ignore. Feel free to try to defend them. And, if you're feeling generous, you can helpfully explain why you've never mentioned them before.

Sure do.

It's crazy how quickly and lazily you fall back on perception. Protip: if your response to a criticism is that you don't think people care, you don't actually have a response.

That said, Obama sure seems to think his opponent's job is newsworthy, and doesn't seem to think just doing that job well is any kind of defense. So, he can live and die by that same principle. Either people just do their jobs well and can't really be held accountable for what that entails, or not. Can't have it both ways.

Here's a great example of a very serious failing. This administration has had tons of messaging failures and general gaffes, and most get very little coverage. Sometimes this makes sense, because gaffes aren't really that important (though there's pretty much always a huge double-standard on this point). But there are a few big, glaring issues that I don't think Obama has much of an answer for. They're clear, inarguable screwups on issues that really matter, not just for political purposes. This is one of them:


Fast & Furious
The Fast & Furious gunwalking program. For those who don't know (which is quite a few people, because it's stunning how little coverage it's gotten relatively to how messed up it is), this is a program wherein the DOJ deliberately gave guns to Mexican drug cartels in hopes that they could them trace them back to them when they were caught.

Shockingly, this give-assault-weapons-to-drug-dealers plan didn't go all that smoothly. They lost track of tons of the weapons, and one of them was used to kill a United States border agent.

Naturally, this sort of stuff got people's attentions. Hearings were held; Attorney General Holder was called to testify, at which time he seems to have probably lied about his knowledge of the program. Bare minimum, he gave false testimony and the Administration (in what is apparently a bit of a pattern of administrative cross-talk) gave conflicting accounts of things. More on the contradictions here.

Congress subpoenaed more documents to investigate this contradiction, and Obama invoked Executive Privilege to deny them access. At which point scads of Democrats who excoriated Bush for invoking it, suddenly defended the idea, even using the same talking points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgil5gKBwWE

But wait, it's worse: by invoking Executive Privilege, Obama contradicts Holder implicitly. Holder said Obama and the Executive Branch had no knowledge of this. However, you can only invoke Executive Privilege to protect communication between the Executive and others. How can it be privileged information for the Executive AND something that had nothing to do with him? Oops. But the media didn't talk about this much, so I guess it's magically not a story. Nice of them to triage this stuff for us.

Ultimately, 14 underlings went down, but the documents have not been provided and the contradictions haven't been explained. Congress ultimately held Holder, the sitting Attorney General, in Contempt (that's a big deal). Holder has kept his job, amazingly.

Oh, and just for good measure, he made sure to imply his critics were racist for investigating his role.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

You said before it was shocking.

That is not the same as Obama criticizes Romney's job performance, so let's point out things he has done.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Okay: it's shocking that he would criticize Romney's job performance given the kinds of things he did as part of his job.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

That isn't exactly a new story.

I don't recall Romney making a big deal about it.

Your interpretation of some of the facts are skewed, but if you think it is important to highlight it, go ahead.

I am not going to play tit for tat and bring up all the Romney stories I haven't mentioned.

But you go ahead and talk about all the terrible things Obama has done.

We'll see if that makes any difference who gets elected in November.

I didn't know anything about it. I actually am a little shocked. Guess I shouldn't be, but I am.

Crap, you're right. I forgot to check the Statute of Limitations on Hypocrisy.

Cool, thanks, I will. I might not have enough time to list them all, but I'll try.

I hate to break it to you, but nothing any of us say will change who gets elected in November. Obama doesn't become magically right about anything if he wins, nor proven wrong if he loses.

The Fast & Furious debacle is a debacle no matter what happens in November, no matter who in the media covers it, and no matter how many people on message boards whistle and turn their head when it gets brought up.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program “Begun Under the Previous Administration”

He's done this several times now.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

No, nothing either of us says matters. What is news matters. And what is news has been Romney's unprecedented attempt at using a national tragedy to take a swipe at the President and bonehead remarks he made privately compounded by bonehead comments he made to defend it.

It is hypocrisy because I didn't bring up the gun thing? That thread was about the campaign and that has not been an issue. I have been bringing up things that have become a campaign issue.

Yo were certainly free to bring it up if you wanted to.

What's news matters in a completely self-fulfilling way. If the media covers something, that "matters" in the sense that it will affect the election. And if they give a scandal short shrift, that matters for the same reason. That's different than saying it "matters" in the sense of being significant or important. Failing to make this distinction leads to the kind of circular reasoning you keep trotting out, where things aren't important simply because they're not news, and if they're not in the news they must not be important. Try to spot the ridiculously elementary logical error.

The U.S. government handing out assault weapons to drug cartels, losing track of them, having them kill a border agent and then stonewalling investigations and contradicting themselves when questioned about it, is a big deal. That matters. It matters if everyone covers it, and it matters if no one covers it. If your only response is about coverage, then congratulations, because you've just a) made my point for me and b) admitted you don't have a substantive response.

I guess I have a different set of priorities on what should be newsworthy. Personally, I think a mess like F & F is more important than focusing on more trivial things like who's winning the campaign game. I have a different way of looking at it, unconcerned with how anything affects images, polls, ect. or calculating public opinion while dismissing important things as "old" or "irrelevant" or whatever.

That attitude is part of the problem, the notion that these things are only important insofar as they affect politicians, while armchair analysts abstract and debate issues in terms of election cycles.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Wait, so campaigns should be more about dull, substantive things like policies and results rather than exciting, gossipy things like how people come off, how charismatic they are, how things look or sound, or who can make people believe they care more?

What a curious notion, sir! Please tell me more of this strange new approach to politics.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

It has been covered. And it has not made an impact on the election.

The public decides what is important.

And at the moment it is 47 percent.

I figure politics should seem dull to dumb and superficial people. That way they'll be less likely to cause problems. Let them vote for american idols while the smart people weigh the pros and cons of ideas.

Of course, the news media became another form of entertainment decades ago. I literally watched it happen.

I guess the Iraq War wasn't important, because hey, Bush got reelected. Cool logic, bro.

If your only response to this scandal is to doubt whether or not it'll affect the election, then you might as well hold up a big sign that says "I HAVE NO WAY OF MEANINGFULLY RESPONDING TO THIS."

Even if it did (which it didn't) why is he continuing it? Guantanamo, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping etc. all began before him but he's openly continued them. He's missing the point. I can't tell if these people are that stupid or the voters are.


This tips the scales a bit of course

Remember when we spent all that money we didn't have? That was a cool episode. Season 2009 was pretty depressing, though.

WHO CARES IT PROBABLY WONT AFFECT THE ELECTION I'LL BET HE WINS THEREFORE ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID. COMMENCE INSERTING UNNECESSARY PARAGRAPH BREAK:

Try to keep up with the new logic we're using here, man.

We don't have a parliamentary form of governemnt. Issues matter, but when you are electing a President factors such as leadership and competency matter as well. And charisma is part of leadership. How they react to a crisis matters. What they say about forty percent of the country also matters.

Romney has not been running an issues focused campaign. He has been real light on specifics. He could have made this a policy focused campaign if he had wanted to.

Oh terribly sorry.

4 + 7 = 11

7 + 4 - 1 - 1 = 9

Wow I just solved 9/11 guys.

Vote Obama. Jeesy Creesy.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Again, self-fulfilling logic: things matter because people let them dictate their decisions. If they cared less about how things are presented, the presentation would matter less. If they cared more about policy, policy would matter more. Saying it matters is a tautology.

So you think it is terrible Obama is continuing some policies started by Bush?

Uh. Duh?

What's terrible is that he would excoriate them, become President, keep doing them, and lots of his supporters would just look the other way at the stuff they were outraged about before.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

He tried to change some, and did not criticize all of them. and the political reality constrained him from making some changes he wanted to.

I seem to recall when Bush was president mny conservatives were silent about Bush policies that they were critical of when they were done under Clinton.

I was talking to Yoda, not you.

My, how vague. Which ones did he try to change? Are you admitting he's completely failed to follow through on the others? And which ones are his supporters giving him a pass on? And how much responsibility does a President bear for making laundry lists of unrealistic promises?

Clumsy attrition really is the only thing in your playbook, isn't it? You literally have no idea how to defend this guy's record.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

You are shocked when some Obama supporters don't make a stink about broken promises, but not when some Bush supporters do the same thing.

It is incredible your double standards.

And it it is you who constantly does that. I don't.

They all do it, make promises they can't keep. Bush did it also.

Right, I forgot this part of your MO: Republican screwups are always particularly bad and need to be accounted for, and Democratic screwups are always just stuff everybody does and can be brushed off.

Yup, they all do sometimes. So either a) we never talk about any of them or b) we critique them based on how major the issues are and how frequently they do it. I say we go with b). So let's go through them. You can start by actually answering those questions you were quoting.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Before the topic shifts any further, by the way, can we all stop and reflect for a moment on the fact that will was actually trying to make the case that giving guns to drug cartels, losing track of them, having them kill an American border agent, and then contradicting themselves and stonewalling the investigation doesn't matter?

Seriously. That actually happened. Just now. It's still there and everything.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Like I said before you have presented a distorted version of events.

And if what you say actually did happen the way you said it did, then Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the people and romney might as well skip the election.

No, that is not what I aM SAYING, THEY ALL SCREW-UP. i AM SAYING YOU SPECIFICALLY WANT TO MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT MINOR THINGS, LIKE SOME UNFULFILLED CAMPAIGN PROMISES WHEN IT WAS OBAMA AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY IF IT IS A rEPUBLICAN.

Where did you say that, and what is distorted about the account?

I'm sorry, did you just suggest that the Patriot Act, Gitmo, drone strikes, and the executive power Obama criticized relentlessly before he became President are "minor things"?

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Yes.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

I wish we had a smilie that was just a mouth hanging open.

How about Fast & Furious? That just a minor little thing, too? Just some assault weapons, just a dead border agent. No biggie. Nothing to see here.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Fast and Furious went wrong. But not all the statements you have made are correct or have been accepted as fact.

if everything you said was true about it, why hasn't it become a bigger issue?

Obama still moderated policies with regard to those issues from the Bush Administration. It is hardly the case he kept everything in place to status quo.

That is why, overall, that some campaign pledges didn't come to pass is relatively unimportant.

Like? I asked you above to elaborate on this.

Holy crap, welcome to the party, will.

So what'd he change, and why does that give him slack? And which ones has he just straight-up broken his word on? You're only talking in generalities.

So torture, which doesn't work, retention of whistleblowers, bombing funerals, maintaining and extending the Patriot Act, making sure that SPECIFICALLY indefinite detention of Americans goes through in court, not to mention economic issues, those are all minor. Wow. Maybe I have seen it all now. People have allowed their standards to be lowered so far by media that some of the most abhorrent things our country has done are now minor quibbles. "It's just a scratch."

Time to move to Finland, back on the boats lads.

Btw I love this quote: "When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it."

Disrupts people's idea of safe place. Social unrest is the last thing the media wants.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Have you seen any of those things regularly covered on the news, man? No? Then I guess they must not be important. Duh.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Because most of what you say about Fast and furious is Fox News stuff. There is no point in getting in a point by point debate about it.

Like I said before, you can talk all you want about it.

Now and after Obama is re-elected.

Maybe it will matter more then.

They aren't waterboarding anymore, so where is this administration still torturing?

I've never heard talking about facts being related to Fox News, are you sure that's what you want to say?

Translation: it's outside of your echo chamber, therefore it doesn't count.

None of the links I posted were to Fox News. But three of them were, I admit, to notorious right-wing spin machines like the Washington Post, CBS, and CNN.

Translation: it was a kneejerk contradiction and you don't actually know anything about it.

You said it's distorted. You said it twice, in fact. What part is distorted?

Statemnts Yoda made was Fox News variety, making charges that are not recognized as universal facts. There are the facts about Fast and Furious and Fox spin. Yoda was giving Fox spin.

A lot of the stiff in this thread comes from conservative media, not mainstream.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

I have read plenty about it, but this election isn't about it.

They screwed up, but again you make false assertions or unverified ones and you can keep making them.

Meanwhile, while the Obama bounce is technically over in national polls, the electoral map is getting smaller for Romney as more swing states are getting out of reach.

If you think talking about the failures of Fast and Furious is a potential game changer, I suggest you contact the Romney campaign to focus on it.

^^^ That's what I was talking about before.

Like what?

Like what?

Like what?

Do you come from an alternate dimension where you can just say things are false, and just keep saying that without ever explaining why no matter how many times you're asked? And in this alternate dimension, is Harry Reid President?

I'm talking about the failures of Fast & Furious in reality, as a policy that has consequences. You do understand that there's an objective reality where things happen and have meaning and significance even when they don't change the results of elections, right? You know Brian Terry is dead, and doesn't magically spring back to life if Obama wins, right? Because if you know these things, then responses like the above are inexplicable.

I'm going to stick with the main issue here which is Obama'a failure(s) and I'm going to keep it real simple:
Domesticaly the US is economicaly definitely not better off than it was 3 years, 9 months a go when Obama took office.
The unemployment rate is higher, the insurance rates keep going up, we had socialized medecine showed down our throats so that those that can't afford it can pay penalties and help big government more.
We have slipped from the number one economic spot in the world to the number 8 spot.
Our international credit rating has been lowered.
We owe China so much money that it gave up on the idea of forming a Pan-Asian currency ( Asian version of the Euro, which would completely kill the Dollar ).
As far as foreign policy goes Obama has undermined The US political reputation in the world. Before we were at least feared but now we are jeered and laughed at.
In the Middle East, he has actually helped the Muslim Brotherhood attain power in Egypt, Tunisia and Lybia and they definitely want the USA out of there.
Obama is all smoke and mirrors, making a priority going after a man (Bin Ladin ) who was no longer a viable threat and not even mentioning the name of the man responsible for 9/11 2012 co-ordinated attacks against US Embassies in Lybia, Tunisia and Egypt, embassies that were left defenseless.
Also, Obama's relationship with the leaders of two very important powers, Putin and Hu Jin Tao, are non-existent not to mention his enmity towards Netanyahu, who is vital to our interests in that region, but Obama embraces Hugo Chavez, who is a sworn enemy of the USA.
Those are the facts.
Should Obama get re-elected, not only will we continue on an economic downward spiral but we will become weaker yet in our foreign policy and more vulnerable to outside attacks.
He clearly has a personal agenda that is not in the best interests of the majority of Americans.

Speaking of our world standing, it would be instructive to remember just how naive both he and many of his supporters were about this stuff back in 2008. For example:

Of course, reality has punched this idea in the face a lot over the last few years, and the Embassy attack is the uppercut that forces the ref to stop the fight.

Obviously, making rosy promises that have to meet hard reality is a time honored tradition among all candidates-cum-Presidents. But the diversion between this quote and the reality is exceptionally large, and it's difficult to overstate just how ridiculous it was that anyone ever took the above seriously. A lot of people (including Obama himself, apparently) really thought the symbolic value of his election would ripple throughout the world and result in a new world image for the United States. "Stronger at home, more respected in the world" was a mantra his campaign repeated very often. And we're neither.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

Yes, and that exactly is what Romney and his adviser has done recently, elect Romney and terrorism will stop because Romney will be perceived to be such a tough ass. That is pretty much what an adviser said recently and Romney remarks have reflected the same attitude. Part of what Obama has said is true. America is better respected by the world now a less antagonistic, America first policy has been implemented. But the terrorists hate America no matter who is in power, and no matter who is president, they will try to strike. They are not afraid of Obama and they don't respect him either, and Romney they won't be afraid of either and will have no respect for.

There is an interview Romney gave that is typical Romney, criticizing the President's policy in the Middle East, but basically saying he wouldn't do anything different except maybe talk tougher.

That is Romney on almost everything. I'll be better, don't ask me how.

But most of his advisers are neocons, many of whom worked for Bush who were itching to get into Iraq from day one. Many of them have advocated commiting troops for invasions in the Middle East. I doubt Romney would do that because I think he is all talk, unlike Bush, and instinctively cautious. But if he listens to some of his people, and it includes a certifiable loony who claims the Muslim Brotherhood has inflitrated the White House, we elect him and we can look forward to more unnecessary costly wars that could only be paid for by eliminating the safety net for everyone, like that pesky entitlement dependent 47 percent.

Look, the issue here is not Romney, it's Obama.
I'm not a big Romney fan, matter of fact I think there is something robotic about him. I just know that I don't want what Obama allready showed us and I feel it will be more of the same if he is re-elected, if not worse, and I'm willing to give Romney a chance to do better.

Things go wrong sometimess. Mistakes happen.

So all the things that have gone wrong are an argument to elect Romney?

Man, I just can't stop laughing at this one.

Yes, and we all live in Tinkley Winkley Land with the Happy Little Elves.

We are better respected around the world? You watch way, way too much "mainstream" news.

http://urbanbellemag.com/wp-content/...ol-aid-man.jpg

Because none of your specific charges other than the program failed are facts. They are certainly alternate universe becaues if some of your non facts were true people would be in jail and president would be impeached.

Washington Examiner is real mainstream, a paper that only publishes conservative commentators and has a specific editorial policy to do that.

Yes, it is a real stiff paper:)

And you have that right. But a lot of people look at Romney and don't like the alternative.

Except there was a public court case. Or was there?

THAT IS WHY WE ARE UPSET because none of those repercussions are happening

Well it certainly boosts the case for electing him. Obama has had his shot and not only not delivered but shown a strong predesposition for making things even worse. I don't think that Romney would be worse.
He certainy has a better economic base and I think that his stance on foreign policy would be firmer and more resolute.

Almost all of my charges are encompassed by the statement "the program failed," so I'm not sure what you think you're claiming here.

Anything less than 100% established was described accurately; for example, my claim that Holder "probably lied" or at least misstated things can be found in the testimony itself, where Holder denies knowledge of the program, and then has to correct himself when documents prove otherwise. I can quote it directly if necessary, but the fact that I've asked for specifics five times without getting any makes me think you're just sort of fishing and determined to dispute this stuff whether you really have anything to say or not.

Er, no he wouldn't. Nothing I charged suggests that. Obama didn't testify and he invoked Executive Privilege, besides.

Leaving aside the hilarious implication that anything from a conservative source you can just completely dismiss without explaining why, I didn't link to any Examiner articles in relation to Fast & Furious.

Here it is, everyone. I found it. This is will's defense of the Obama administration's actions. A slightly longer version of "Whoops."

I know, right? It's like there's something that literally prevents him from understanding the complaint. Probably an inexplicably unshakable belief in the mainstream media. Which, by the way, is significantly less trusted these days.

Re: Obama's Failures
 

“We have a rule: we never free a mind once it reaches a certain age. It’s dangerous. The mind has trouble letting go. I’ve seen it before and I’m sorry.” -Morpheus

Well, polls show that. The world thought little of America when Bush was running the show.

This America first, either you're with us or against us, is not a great way to make friends and influence people.

No, you linked it to a bombshell article that Obama as an attorney defended a slum landlord! What a wowser story that was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laxOAV-8Jn4

And people who point them out. And supporters who try to clumsily brush them off by saying things like "All administrations have failures."

But you'll still pathologically contradict them and then say you won't debate them when asked to back it up.

If you don't want to debate these things, that's your call. But that involves not feigning argument in the first place if you're just going to withdraw when questioned. Debate or don't, but don't waste my time with kneejerk denials you can't or won't defend.

You're all twisted up here. The question is not whether or not these actions would be impeachable if exposed. The question is whether or not the lack of impeachment somehow means there must be no merit to them, which is what you suggested. And the answer is: of course not, because the President won't release the documents.

Which begs the question: how can Obama not have known about the program and insist that the documents contain privileged Executive communications? Explain that, if you would.

Your insistence on valuing arguments purely on their electoral impact is staggeringly small-minded and, frankly, part of the problem.

Ugh. That first argument is terrible. Obama's not a liberal because people still shop and eat fast food? What?

The only argument here is foreign policy. He's certainly not been liberal there. But domestically, he absolutely has. The fact that Bill Maher wanted single-payer healthcare and just got a universal mandate doesn't mean the universal mandate isn't liberal, it just means Bill Maher had insane expectations. The fact that liberals thought they were going to get everything they wanted doesn't mean what they got isn't liberal. Of course it is. All Maher does here is refute the people who go over the top and act like he's completely dismantled American society. The fact that he's not a raging Marxist like the Michelle Bachmanns of the world think doesn't make him moderate. It's a big ol' straw man.

And boy, do we need to talk about that spending graph. Total bull. The problem, in a nutshell, is it uses 2009 as a baseline and then measures spending growth against that ridiculously high sum. It says that because the deficit was insanely high the first year he came in, that's the new "normal" and he's only increased it slightly from that insanely high point. What was unprecedented in 2009 (though he supported the things that drove it to that point, anyway) has become constant under Obama.

We've added about $6 trillion to the national debt during Obama's term. That's 60% of the total for all previous Presidents combined. In less than a single term.

Yeah, I am the problem. I am the reason Republicans nominated a candidate who is going to lose in a year he shouldn't.