[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sorry, CB!
Agree…but what tends to happen with historical figures (sorry, guys…Obama will be one)
Mufasa[/quote]
Who are you arguing this with? He’s a President.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
100% serious post.
The night Obama was elected, I knew that now, and forever I am not lying when I look my bi-racial son in the eyes and tell him he can be anything he wants to be in this world.
I knew for sure at that moment the American Dream is alive and well, and that people can and will look past silly things like skin color if they believe in a person, in who that person is.
I’ll be glad to omit his record over the last four years from the narative, and remember “hope and change”. If only for how good it felt that night, for those couple moments before the hope faded, and the change never came.
I’ll omit the failure, and even pretend the progressive wasn’t there, if only to believe in the Dream.[/quote]
Well stated, and I’d simply add that on the day of inauguration, we were blessed to have our first black president, and I was damn proud of that moment, as all of us should have been, and nothing can ever take that away. That, truly, was progress.
That said, the next day, Obama was simply Mr. President, to now be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin. That, also, is progress.
Obama’s record is just too volatile to be swept under the rug by historians. One of the biggest (and worst) aspects (and possible precedents) is Obama’s overreach with executive power as a way to avoid Congress.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
However, I’m hoping the next step will be in understanding that even a black president can be called out on his record. You’ll know when racism and race baiting isn’t an issue anymore. Not because we can elect a black president. There’s no doubt on that anymore. But because we can criticize him, and see race baiting jackasses like Matthews fired for his crazy-man reactions to such criticisms.
[/quote]
Agree.
The man squandered the opportunity of a lifetime. He came in at a time where America wanted to come back from the brink of collapse, and looked to him to lead us out…
Instead we got a massive AHA bomb that more than half of those polled don’t like and we can’t afford.
Even now, instead of focusing on how he will build us up, he focuses on how bad the guy before him was, he focuses on how bad and rich the guy who wants to replace him is, and he focuses on how bad the other side was for not bowing to him. He is about small things, big bird, binders and now bayonets. Calling out “romnesia” like that quip is going to win him anything more than some laughs on twitter.
The man is a rock star, not a President. Only the left and fanboys can even think to call racism at this point. It is silly. Obama isn’t a leader, he isn’t a good president and hasn’t fuffilled his promise to America. His skin color isn’t the reason he failed, and it isn’t the reason people want him out of office.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
TB:
Agree…but what tends to happen with historical figures (sorry, guys…Obama will be one)is that there is usually written 1) “nuts-and-bolts” kinds of essays and books (that would cover his numerous missteps with Congress, as an example) and 2) the overall narrative, (which often may INCLUDE #1)…but is not the primary focus.[/quote]
But you overstate it. JFK was the first Catholic to hold the Presidency. Big deal? Yes, especially given the historical skepticism of Catholicism in America up to that point. Is JFK’s legacy about this fact? No, not really at all. It’s a footnote.
Race isn’t religion, and I don’t suggest that it is - it is bigger and has a deeper context in American history - but liek JFK’s legacy, the narrative for Obama will not be as confined to symbolism at the expense as you seem to suggest.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sorry, CB!
I love “PWI”…but damn if you can’t get cynical about a lot of the stuff that gets posted!
Mufasa[/quote]
ha, no worries. It isn’t like I’ve said many nice things about obama, so I can understand where you are coming from.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
However, I’m hoping the next step will be in understanding that even a black president can be called out on his record. You’ll know when racism and race baiting isn’t an issue anymore. Not because we can elect a black president. There’s no doubt on that anymore. But because we can criticize him, and see race baiting jackasses like Matthews fired for his crazy-man reactions to such criticisms.
[/quote]
Agree.
The man squandered the opportunity of a lifetime. He came in at a time where America wanted to come back from the brink of collapse, and looked to him to lead us out…
Instead we got a massive AHA bomb that more than half of those polled don’t like and we can’t afford.
Even now, instead of focusing on how he will build us up, he focuses on how bad the guy before him was, he focuses on how bad and rich the guy who wants to replace him is, and he focuses on how bad the other side was for not bowing to him. He is about small things, big bird, binders and now bayonets. Calling out “romnesia” like that quip is going to win him anything more than some laughs on twitter.
The man is a rock star, not a President. Only the left and fanboys can even think to call racism at this point. It is silly. Obama isn’t a leader, he isn’t a good president and hasn’t fuffilled his promise to America. His skin color isn’t the reason he failed, and it isn’t the reason people want him out of office.[/quote]
/thread
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
His skin color isn’t the reason he failed, and it isn’t the reason people want him out of office.[/quote]
Absolutely. At least admit that he’s failed to defend or explain his policies, if one isn’t willing to say that his policies are failures. Look, if having a black President does have a tangible effect on minority students, God bless 'em. I hope it inspires them to shoot for the stars. But for me, some of that was soured by the attitudes that were assigned to people like me who are critical of his RECORD. I look forward to the day that a black President is simply a President, defended or attacked solely on his record. Though I’m hoping he’s someone more like an Allen West. Or a her, like Mia Love. Too soon?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sorry, CB!
Agree…but what tends to happen with historical figures (sorry, guys…Obama will be one)
Mufasa[/quote]
Who are you arguing this with? He’s a President. [/quote]
No argument, Sloth.
I have friends who wouldn’t give the President a drink of water if he was dehydrating in the desert. They want him to just be gone…kaput…done…
They always call me some “shill” when I point out that most likely he will be written about more (both positive and negative) than the Bush’s and even (ready for this?) Reagan.
That isn’t “shilling”…it’s just that he will have a particular place in history.
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I love it Romney shows he knows nothing and the CJ Society sees it as a Romney win . [/quote]
At some point you have to stop towing the line, if only to preserve your own credibility. If you think Obama won the debate as far as presentation goes, fine. But he flat failed to ruin Romney on the last policy front he had left. Look at the CNN poll Commander and Chief question. This isn’t just about us. I think our comments here pretty much reflect what the people as a whole saw. Romney gets a thumbs up, proceed, as Commander in Chief. Not that Obama failed to earn the same. He simply failed to deny Romney. So now that leaves this election to be decided on domestic issues, primarily the economy and jobs. And on those questions, Obama hasn’t fared so well. Obama had to make Romney unacceptable with regard to foreign policy alone. It didn’t happen, pitt. I’m very sorry.
[/quote]
I guess we will know in a couple weeks
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
TB:
Agree…but what tends to happen with historical figures (sorry, guys…Obama will be one)is that there is usually written 1) “nuts-and-bolts” kinds of essays and books (that would cover his numerous missteps with Congress, as an example) and 2) the overall narrative, (which often may INCLUDE #1)…but is not the primary focus.[/quote]
But you overstate it. JFK was the first Catholic to hold the Presidency. Big deal? Yes, especially given the historical skepticism of Catholicism in America up to that point. Is JFK’s legacy about this fact? No, not really at all. It’s a footnote.
Race isn’t religion, and I don’t suggest that it is - it is bigger and has a deeper context in American history - but liek JFK’s legacy, the narrative for Obama will not be as confined to symbolism at the expense as you seem to suggest.[/quote]
We’ll see.
Time and History can be funny things.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sorry, CB!
Agree…but what tends to happen with historical figures (sorry, guys…Obama will be one)
Mufasa[/quote]
Who are you arguing this with? He’s a President. [/quote]
No argument, Sloth.
I have friends who wouldn’t give the President a drink of water if he was dehydrating in the desert. They want him to just be gone…kaput…done…
They always call me some “shill” when I point out that most likely he will be written about more (both positive and negative) than the Bush’s and even (ready for this?) Reagan.
That isn’t “shilling”…it’s just that he will have a particular place in history.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I have no reason to believe the man doesn’t love his family and neighbor. There is nothing about the man that makes me think he wouldn’t be an excellent neighbor. Nothing. But I damn sure don’t want the man running the nation a day longer. I have family who I love, but wouldn’t want to see running this nation.
“…Obama’s record is just too volatile to be swept under the rug by historians. One of the biggest (and worst) aspects (and possible precedents) is Obama’s overreach with executive power as a way to avoid Congress…”
This is a prime example, TB.
Historians will ask “Why?”…then proceed to answer that question with as much evidence as they can muster.
Some with ultimately come to the conclusion that he was an ill-prepared, power-hungry egomaniac, interested only in his own agenda, whom felt he was above it all…
And some will come to the conclusion “He had no choice…”…then proceed to give reasons why.
And some will will come to the conclusion that “both” are true.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
We’ll see.
Time and History can be funny things.[/quote]
We will, but reality has a way of undermining preferred narratives, and Obama’s narrative may ultimately be one of irony - the candidate that finally represented a certain, long-awaited step forward in unity eschewed unity and instead became a figure that tried to succeed by breeding division among people.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
100% serious post.
The night Obama was elected, I knew that now, and forever I am not lying when I look my bi-racial son in the eyes and tell him he can be anything he wants to be in this world.
I knew for sure at that moment the American Dream is alive and well, and that people can and will look past silly things like skin color if they believe in a person, in who that person is.
I’ll be glad to omit his record over the last four years from the narative, and remember “hope and change”. If only for how good it felt that night, for those couple moments before the hope faded, and the change never came.
I’ll omit the failure, and even pretend the progressive wasn’t there, if only to believe in the Dream.[/quote]
Well stated, and I’d simply add that on the day of inauguration, we were blessed to have our first black president, and I was damn proud of that moment, as all of us should have been, and nothing can ever take that away. That, truly, was progress.
That said, the next day, Obama was simply Mr. President, to now be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin. That, also, is progress.
Obama’s record is just too volatile to be swept under the rug by historians. One of the biggest (and worst) aspects (and possible precedents) is Obama’s overreach with executive power as a way to avoid Congress. [/quote]
Very, very well put. Same to Sloth and Beans.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is a prime example, TB.
Historians will ask “why?”…then proceed to answer that question with as much evidence as they can muster.
Some with ultimately come to the conclusion that he was an ill-prepared, power-hungry egomaniac, interested only in his own agenda, whom felt he was above it all…
And some will come to the conclusion “He had no choice…”…then proceed to give reasons why.[/quote]
But this isn’t true, no matter how badly you want it to be. Obama didn’t “have” to do any of it. Not a single act that acts as an executive power grab was done as some kind of response to an emergency. Unilateral authorization of the DREAM Act wasn’t “needed”. Unilateral refusal to defend DOMA in court wasn’t “required” because Congress wouldn’t act. When Obama issued waivers to states under the No Child Left Behind Act (which he was not authorized to do) and bound them to his own education policies (that Congress would not pass), that wasn’t an “emergency”.
You highlight one of the problems we have - so desperate for Obama to be someone “great”, there are many who simply won’t view the man objectively. And anyone who tells it other than objectively ain’t providing history.
“…Instead became a figure that tried to succeed by breeding division among people…”
Again…another area where history may take different views…
Some will write about how he bread “class warfare”…
And some will write about how even before he took the Oath of Office he was being called a White-Hating, Kenyan-Born, Marxist out to destroy America…
Was he divisive…portrayed as divisive…
Or both?
History tends to ask those type of thought-provoking questions, especially about Presidents.
Mufasa
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
TB:
Agree…but what tends to happen with historical figures (sorry, guys…Obama will be one)is that there is usually written 1) “nuts-and-bolts” kinds of essays and books (that would cover his numerous missteps with Congress, as an example) and 2) the overall narrative, (which often may INCLUDE #1)…but is not the primary focus.[/quote]
But you overstate it. JFK was the first Catholic to hold the Presidency. Big deal? Yes, especially given the historical skepticism of Catholicism in America up to that point. Is JFK’s legacy about this fact? No, not really at all. It’s a footnote.
Race isn’t religion, and I don’t suggest that it is - it is bigger and has a deeper context in American history - but liek JFK’s legacy, the narrative for Obama will not be as confined to symbolism at the expense as you seem to suggest.[/quote]
How many people have a good picture of JFK? His obfuscations on Vietnam and the unanswerable question of whether or not he’d have sent in more troops expressly to engage in combat, the appalling list of physical ailments and the equally long list of narcotics used to fight them (all kept very secret). The womanizing–not James Bond, wouldn’t it be great to live like that womanizing, but lecherous creepery (forcing an intern whom he had deflowered to give David Powers a blow job while he watched).
The truth is that these things end up being common knowledge among the widely read, but in the collective memory of the mainstream they are abandoned in favor of a facile caricature: a good-looking young guy cloaked in style, eyes shaded from the sun by wayfarers.
The same will be true of Barack Obama (though I don’t by any means intend to imply that he’s a bad guy in his private life). He’ll be the first black President–a momentous and historic achievement. A cool guy, too. Celebrity-ish. He will have stopped a full depression; only the historians and the history buffs will remember that the recovery lagged and the President rarely seemed interested in explaining his positions to the electorate in non-election years. Maybe he’ll be the guy who passed sweeping social legislation, maybe he’ll be the guy who tried but it was repealed by President Romney. But he will certainly be treated with kindness–and, in my view, justifiably so. I’m skeptical about a second Obama term, but I’m glad for the first.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Was he divisive…portrayed as divisive…[/quote]
C’mon, Mufasa. Look at his record. Look at how the ACA got passed.
Obama is not the victim of some large-scale mischaracterization or misunderstanding. He had choices, and he made choices. Look at his choices.
You really push this idea that Obama has been overwhelmed by this motivated-but-tiny group of people who despise Obama and fictionalize him as a devil in their hatred. It’s false, let it go. Obama is a man who is responsible for his own image and his own record. Prior to the GOP gaining control of the House (in direct response to Obama’s policies, don’t forget), Obama had a supermajority in the Senate and a House majority. He could govern any way he wanted, and the moon-bat-Obama-haters had no influence on him at all. What did he do in that time?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is a prime example, TB.
Historians will ask “why?”…then proceed to answer that question with as much evidence as they can muster.
Some with ultimately come to the conclusion that he was an ill-prepared, power-hungry egomaniac, interested only in his own agenda, whom felt he was above it all…
And some will come to the conclusion “He had no choice…”…then proceed to give reasons why.[/quote]
But this isn’t true, no matter how badly you want it to be. Obama didn’t “have” to do any of it. Not a single act that acts as an executive power grab was done as some kind of response to an emergency. Unilateral authorization of the DREAM Act wasn’t “needed”. Unilateral refusal to defend DOMA in court wasn’t “required” because Congress wouldn’t act. When Obama issued waivers to states under the No Child Left Behind Act (which he was not authorized to do) and bound them to his own education policies (that Congress would not pass), that wasn’t an “emergency”.
You highlight one of the problems we have - so desperate for Obama to be someone “great”, there are many who simply won’t view the man objectively. And anyone who tells it other than objectively ain’t providing history.[/quote]
Wrong…wrong…and WRONG, TB…
I don’t “want” anything, one way or the other. I think that its more you who wants there to be completely negative narrative about the man, and that probably won’t happen.
If you read about ANY person in history…that narrative is all over the place…from being portrayed as evil incarnate…to almost a “savior” (think Lincoln).
What is written about the President should, at the very least, be interesting.
And what’s written, is not something I’m “wishing” for, positive OR negative.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Wrong…wrong…and WRONG, TB…
I don’t “want” anything, one way or the other. I think that its more you who wants there to be completely negative narrative about the man, and that probably won’t happen.[/quote]
With due respect, I don’t think this true. No offense, but I believe you have some investment in this President that puts you beyond objectivity.
As for me? No, I don’t want there to be a completely negative narrative about the man, and that’s because I don’t even have a completely negative narrative about the man. I’ve already stated why I think his election was special and that I was proud of it, and I think his presidency is mixed, but has bright spots.
I’ve also not been complimentary of his Tea Party adversaries in Congress, but I also believe that the Tea Party and Obama are simply two sides of the same coin, and it’s their view of the world from the sides of that coin that has set our politics backwards for years to come. I blame the capital-T, capital-P Tea Party for a good bit of that, and I also blame Obama at least as much for this regression.
Are you able to do the same?