Is Obama the People's President?

If President Obama has an Achille's heel, it is not arrogance, ignorance, or inexperience; it is his love of the American people.

I agree that his Achilles's heel isn't arrogance, ignorance, or inexperience, but I don't think it's love of the American people, either.

, but I don't think it's love of the American people, either.

.....as opposed to the love that Dubya showed for the American people, when he sent with love and blessings, thousands of American troops to die for a lie, as well as thousands of citizens, just because he loved Americans so much? That, and bringing the economy to it's knees, makes one shudder from the thought that, what if he had hated Americans?

So, because GWB didn't have love for the American people, it means that Obama necessarily does? The seems to be what you're saying.

Plantsmantx

So, because GWB didn't have love for the American people, it means that Obama necessarily does? The seems to be what you're saying.

No, but as you said nothing to support your views, I think Ggap merely made a suggestion because you lacked to give one. Perhaps you will eloborate as to what President Obama has said and or done in contrast to a President who you feel DID love this country so we can have respect for your point of view?

No,.. I'm saying that Obama does not necessarily has to hate America and it's citizens because some precieves him as "different."

First of all, I'm not really "looking for respect" for my point of view. I'm just stating it. Ggap threw up GWB as a straw man in order to deflect from Obama.

It'a not a matter of contrasting Obama with a President that did "love this country" as much as it's a matter of the author spinning various things that Obama has done as being out of "love for the American people" as opposed to allegiance to the corporate establishment or his own desire for political success.

- Obama's healthcare reform? Mostly a giveaway to the insurers, and a retread of a Republican plan that was conceived to be just that- a giveaway.

- If Obama cared so much about mortgage holders, he wouldn't be trying to let the people who bilked them get off with a $20 billion settlement, which is just a small fraction of what they bilked.

- If Obama cared so much about people on Social Security, he wouldn't have allowed it to become under the purview of his deficit commission, when it has nothing to do with the deficit, and he wouldn't have allowed the staff of that committee to be dominated by minions of Pete Peterson, who is one of the more well-known foes of Social Security.

First of all, I'm not really "looking for respect" for my point of view.

Got it.

What makes the health care Law a giveaway to insurance companies?

What do you think would be an approach to mortgages that would allow you to feel President Obama loves America?

Did he choose the panel or did each side chose the panel house and party choose the panel?

So would it be fair to say you think having everything on the table is fine for one side and not the other?

What makes the health care Law a giveaway to insurance companies?

It delivered a whole new pool of compulsory customers to them without requiring them to compete with a government plan.

What do you think would be an approach to mortgages that would allow you to feel President Obama loves America?

It would help if he actually showed some real enthusiasm about helping homeowners in trouble. All we've seen so far are half-assed, faltering, insufficient efforts.

Did he choose the panel or did each side chose the panel house and party choose the panel?

The co-chairs weren't chosen by the House and Senate, and as it turned out, they were on the same neoliberal wavelength. The same was true of the staff, whose salaries was partially paid for with private funds. Guess who controls the organizations who paid them- Pete Peterson. The decision to include SS didn't come from the legislators on the panel.

So would it be fair to say you think having everything on the table is fine for one side and not the other?

I'm saying that there was no reason for SS to be on the table in the context of a deficit commission.

bill that would in the long-run tackle the skyrocketing health care costs

I don't recall seeing price fixes for any health care services, although admittedly I haven't read the whole thing (I'm in good company, I hear that Pelosi still hasn't either). In my opinion, the bill was mislabeled and mis-sold...it should have been called a health insurance reform bill rather than a health care reform bill, because it does nothing to address the rising costs of health care.

A President that didn't care so much about people might not have taken an oath that garnered more death threats than any other presidency in history. I remember my gut being filled with fear as I watched him and his family walk out on that platform at Grant Park on election night.

Wow, a misplaced fear there, apparently, since no one made an effort to harm him that night. Something tells me that Bush has Obama beat in that department. He was hated by a lot, especially toward the end of his run.

No,.. I'm saying that Obama does not necessarily has to hate America and it's citizens because some precieves him as "different."

What? He's different? How? Does he have 11 toes or something? I sure can't see any noticeable differences.

AndrewCarter

#1.1- You say 38% approval and diving, well it is obvious you want that to happen. Americans are discontent and have not paid attention to detail of what is between the lines. When the President roles out his plan and Americans compare that to the republican plan, there will be distinct difference. Americans will truly see which plans benefits them in the long run and will watch republicans argue against their interest. Want to know why republicans kept saying President Obama should recall congress back to DC to work on this problem? Because they didn't want republicans to recieve the beatings they have recieved during these town hall meetings. Shucks, some republicans like Paul Ryan have charged admission in an effort to keep down the ridicule.. Just because his approval rating is now 38% doesn't equate to the fact Dems and Independents will vote republican in 2012. If you choose to believe that, that is your choice. When the election gets into high gear, America will see the difference between the administration and the republican party, especially Rick Perry, a man who boast he has created jobs in Texas, however the record shows the majority of Jobs created in Texas has been government jobs, and Mr. Perry is on record of accepting stimulus money for the creation of those jobs, but they keep saying the stimulus was a failed policy, now America will see republicans for the liars they truly are. Texas also ranks first in the nation in having the most minimum wage jobs under Rick Perry, Well, when you are as rich as he is, in his mind, a job is a job and the unfortunate should be grateful for anything they can get even if it isn't enough to support daily activities of life. Texas is also running a humungous deficit which will be pointed out during the campaign, so when it's all over Rick Perry will be exposed to be the person he really is, a man who will say and do anything to get what he wants. If you choose to continue to belive the lies of the republican party that is your choice. Republicans ran on job creation for the mid term elections and since gaining control of the house and making gains in the senate, republicans have not produced one jobs creation bill. But they have made noise about abortion and homosexuality. Are those issues your primary concerns as a republican. If not then ask youself one question why haven't they produced a jobs bill? It's not like they haven't had enough time to do so.. Maybe the idea of a Black President is so distasteful to you, you would rather see the country go deeper into a ditch than see him get re elected. If that is the case with you, then again that is your choice. Keep an eye on that 38% you talk about, you will watch those numbers climb, because eventhough unemployment may not improve dramatically over the next year, America will watch President Obama fight for their rights to be employed by introducing programs which will create jobs and watch tea and republicans argue against it. And will America steps into the voting booths Nov 2012 they will pick the person they feel is really looking out for them, not corporate or special interest...

Republicans ran on job creation for the mid term elections

Could you please post a few links of specific republican candidates that used that campaign promise? I'd appreciate it.

Plantsmantx

It delivered a whole new pool of compulsory customers to them without requiring them to compete with a government plan.

There are many reasons that I do not have a problem with the money the insurance companies will make, but I will give you one that I feel means more than all others. If you have a loved one who has reached their insurance cap, they/you need not worry because that cap is gone. That really makes all else insignificant for me. I see life as priceless and if insurance companies profit but I can save a love one because they will not be turned away from care...it is worth whatever they profit for me to have those I love longer or healed.

It would help if he actually showed some real enthusiasm about helping homeowners in trouble. All we've seen so far are half-assed, faltering, insufficient efforts.

Enthusiasm is a matter of perspective, is it not? I mean exactly how does one measure someone else in that area? I read nothing here that has meaning beyond your personal view which in and of itself is actually just one person's opinion. I would love to know more specifics about what you consider insufficient and/or what you feel would make the difference. And these ideas of yours? Would they require congress to pass them and if so how would you go about making that happen?

The co-chairs weren't chosen by the House and Senate, and as it turned out, they were on the same neoliberal wavelength. The same was true of the staff, whose salaries was partially paid for with private funds. Guess who controls the organizations who paid them- Pete Peterson. The decision to include SS didn't come from the legislators on the panel.

I admit I am not one for negative prognastication, so we will differ there for that reason. I would be interested in reading where you found support for what you wrote here about who chose the co heads because I did think Boehner and Reid made those choices.

I'm saying that there was no reason for SS to be on the table in the context of a deficit commission.

Okay so given the climate of how the panel came about, how would you have gotten the debt ceiling raised without putting SS on the table along with everything else?

Wow, a misplaced fear there, apparently, since no one made an effort to harm him that night. Something tells me that Bush has Obama beat in that department. He was hated

Jim you need only google it to learn just how many threats he is receiving rather than speak from ignorance. If you do you will learn that the number of threats went up in 2009 400%. You don't have to like President Obama, Jim but to have such a cavalier attitude about threats on someones life because you do not like their politics?

Those links you asked for? Google Republican campaign promises 2010 and you will find all that you need.

Obama is the people's president to the extent he has done much of what demos wanted him to do. Them conservative repus have not and will never accept him as their president.,

Jen,

The very first link in that search should give you a clue:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1142858.ece

There's one big thing Republicans have promised not to undo: the Bush tax cuts. Republican leaders say that excessive taxes are standing in the way of job creation. And under the plan to create jobs, the Pledge's very first promise is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all income levels.

Is that a campaign promise of "creating jobs" like the liberals have been parroting since January? From this computer chair, it looks more like a consistent "less taxes makes more money available to the private sector for job creation" theory that has always been the Republican stance.

Find me one link to a campaign promise by a Republican candidate in which they promise to "create jobs". And remember, the claim by the left is that "they all" ran on a promise to "create jobs".

Oh, and Jen:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Secret_Service_Threat_level_against_Obama_no_greater_than_under_Bush_Clinton.html

All I did was Google it. A bit of advice...you should take your own advice before posting.

To directly answer the question posed in your title: Not so much, but far more "the peoples President" than the other side of the coin. If a war on the poor, the working class, the oppressed and powerless, the different, and the not so good looking is your game vote for this new band of wacky Republicans.

I am not a huge fan of Pres Obama but the sad truth of it is that I am forced to a vote within the two parties just to keep the reigns away from the aforementioned wacky Republicans. I don't care for the Democrats very much either.....or the Libertarians, but a vote of conscious only helps put the nuclear codes into the hands of some bonafide loonies. At least in my hipbilly opine.

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." Mark Twain

Jim

Is that a campaign promise of "creating jobs" like the liberals have been parroting since January?

Yes, that is a campaign promise.

Find me one link to a campaign promise by a Republican candidate in which they promise to "create jobs".

http://www.wsrp.org/platform.aspx

Mark Dayton: As governor, expanding our state's economy and putting unemployed Minnesotans back to work will be my top priority.

Tom Emmer: We need reform to encourage a strong business economy and create jobs. This reform needs to reach every corner of our state, into every industry and every business large and small so that we can achieve a technological, industrial, and agricultural business renaissance here in Minnesota.

Tom Horner: We need, as a state, to create jobs, to be competitive, to have strong communities. We need to keep asking the questions, ‘What's important for Minnesota to achieve?' and ‘How do we get there?"

http://www.gop.com/index.php/news/2009/09/

I would not send you to a site I had not read first. I did read what you referred to as well and after checking the date, I decided to read a more current one which happen to still say that threats had increased. HOWEVER it was not the amount of threat that I was focused on Jim. It was your attitude about them. The talk of wanting to kill a President seems to have yet to matter more to you than the trivial such has who got the percentage right.
But percetage was not my point Jim. It was your attitude about it. I was trying and still trying to find out if compassion for human life of those you do not like resonates within you and the sad part is I still don't know and worse if I had to guess just based on this I would say no.

http://www.sodahead.com

Jim Comfort

#1.12- Here you go Jim..

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/eric-cantor-cites-job-creation-key-issue

LOL This is one of the clips I had been searching for and for some reason could not find it! I watch CSPAN more than all other channel combined and though it was not the only place I head the Right say it, it was one of them. When I searched, I could not find it and it made me so annoyed. Then you come along in your cape! Thanks PoliticoMan for sharing that.

Jen, and Politico,

Jen provides links for a few state position candidates, and Politico provides a link for one US Representative. That's OBVIOUSLY a clear mandate that ALL Republicans ran on a campaign promise of jobs?

Obama ran on a campaign promise of bringing troops home, so why have the House and Senate Democrats failed in THEIR campaign promise?

And Jen, if you think that the comment I referred to above was, indeed, a campaign promise, then I would contend that they have kept their promise thus far, so the liberals' claims that they are ignoring their promise is erroneous.

There's one big thing Republicans have promised not to undo: the Bush tax cuts. Republican leaders say that excessive taxes are standing in the way of job creation.

Jim

Jen provides links for a few state position candidates, and Politico provides a link for one US Representative. That's OBVIOUSLY a clear mandate that ALL Republicans ran on a campaign promise of jobs?

Jim, if you are waiting for me to research them all for you, I am more than willing to allow you to either pretend or actually be ignorant on the subject. The info was provided per your request for at least one example. Had you bothered to go to the second link I provided, you would have known it was the GOP mid term election site where the issues are stated for all candidates and job creation is on the list. I merely added the first part for a quick read.

Obama ran on a campaign promise of bringing troops home, so why have the House and Senate Democrats failed in THEIR campaign promise?

This is a nice try at redirecting the topic rather than addressing how you were wrong. I am not going to play this game. I noticed how you skipped over acknowledging who the person in the clip was and that he spoke in plural. I noticed that you are not defending your position about death threats too. I also noticed that rather than follow through with the topics we started with, you are trying to add new ones instead. In fact, I just read an article earlier where Rove supposedly sent out an email saying for people to do exactly what you are doing here.

And Jen, if you think that the comment I referred to above was, indeed, a campaign promise, then I would contend that they have kept their promise thus far, so the liberals' claims that they are ignoring their promise is erroneous.

There's one big thing Republicans have promised not to undo: the Bush tax cuts. Republican leaders say that excessive taxes are standing in the way of job creation.

Yes, I do think that comment was about job creation. Or are you now saying that the Bush tax cuts were not about job creation? Are they not saying that by cutting Bush taxe,s jobs are and will be created? If not, then please enlighten me about what is the connection between job creation and tax cuts that they are making?

I also noticed that you edited a part of the comment this time. It is the part that says:

And under the plan to create jobs, the Pledge's very first promise is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all income levels.

Under the PLAN to do what, Jim?

As to it being erroneous, unless you can provide evidence that since the midterm, the cuts have indeed provided jobs as promised, then I fail to see how the GOP's opposition are wrong about this. It is very simple...either the Bush cuts caused job creation since the midterms or it did not. So please enlighten me as I am not aware of job growth since the midterms due to the cuts.

Here are some of the Rove point we will here from his trolls:

You've all been working hard, and it's paying off. Obama's numbers are plummeting as I type this. Congratulations all around. But we can't afford to be complacent now.

I just want to briefly go over a few Mission Points with you.

1. Main mission: Infiltrate all liberal web sites, posing as disaffected liberals with liberal-sounding user names, icons and signatures. (Reference Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, FDR, Smedley Butler, Bill Clinton, etc.)

2. Express. Disappointment. With. Obama. (Whining pays double!) (jk!)

3. Push primary challenge. Push third party. Push Green. Push Socialist. Push write-in voting. Push non-voting to "send a message."

4. Effective memes/talking points:

"Obama is a DINO."
"Obama is no different than a Republican."
"Obama has sold us out."
"It feels good to vote your conscience."
"It feels good to stick to your principles."
"Don't be trapped into voting for the lesser of two evils."
"We need to punish Obama and the Democrats by not voting."
"We'd be better off with a Republican in the White House."
"Obama is a war-mongering, torturing, corporatist shill."

SO if you here these, you are probably talking to a Rove troll

There is n old saying that seems appropriate: "Rome was not built in a day."

There's another old saying that's just as appropriate: "Nero fiddled while Rome burned".

Answer me this,

If Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer why doesn't he follow the Constitution?

I would like to see Judge Andrew Napolitano educate Obama on what the Constitution stands for.

For all you people who are claiming we are color blind and think racism has anything to do with our NOT loving Obama, if Herman Cain was going against Obama in the next election I would vote for Mr. Cain above ALL others. So put that in your devotion pipe and smoke it.

Clear and simple, it is policy and direction that I and millions of others that will not blindly support Obama just because he was put in office. We support the Constitution not a person.

If anyone follows/loves Obama just because he is at the command altar then you deserve what agendas are being FORCED down Americas throat. We are based on FREEDOM not Socialised medicine or any other agenda.

So continue on with your tribute thread to your leader. But like you said you expected dispute.

And just how much Bwahahahahhahah can we believe from someone who is either a re-register or still wet behind the ears?(1623)

Lawyer,

I brought it up because it always ends up being all that the left seems to fall back on.

As for respecting the man I will give him respect when I believe he deserves it. I do not see him doing anything more then if any other left/progressive would have pushed.

Wanting him to succeed would mean ALL of America succeeding, his direction is one sided.

kerry,

why are you so critical of everyone/

why are you soooooooooooooo angry?

No anger here, just critical of certain topics. For instance, this thread..... Is Obama "The People's President" That is like an American President claiming his opinions/desires reprsents all Americans. It is not ALL but rather some.