Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk
Can someone tell me a good reason why people are pissed at Obama anymore? Unemployment way down, the Dow is sky high, more people with health ins than ever before... what exactly are people upset over??
|
Let's see ...
---> Unemployment is down but real wages remain depressed;
---> The economic recovery happens as a natural swing and the blame/claim as to the Dow's rise and fall aren't attributable to any single President (Clinton, Bush had a hand in the collapse and Bush, Obama had a hand in the recovery).
---> The Affordable Care Act has taken an Orwellian turn and, while more people may have coverage, significant numbers of people are paying a lot more for a lot less coverage. Obama's debacle of mandating that everyone use a broken health care system and couching it as "reform" is coming home to roost. Since October, and for the first time since its enactment, employers are having to comply with the expensive mandate options and employees are finding these costs passed to them or simply having their employer based benefits terminated (leaving folks to enter costly exchanges).
---> Foreign policy - and the lack thereof. I would suggest that there is a real perception out there that the world is a less safe place for America than when he arrived - not all Obama's doing obviously. However, under the guise of ending US unilateralism and "building consensus," Obama has traded away US world dominance and gained no real security benefit in return. On his watch, the world went from a unipolar US led hegemony to a multi-polar world with the other "poles" (China, Russia) having interests and cultures completely divergent from the American/West European ideal.
---> The Justice Department and Eric Holden. - This one is really high on my personal list - IMHO, and in my recollection, this administration has been the absolute worst for its flagrant abuse of the Constitution and Rule of Law ("I have a pen and a phone").
Sure, every past administration has bent some big rules and broken some small ones - but at least they paid lip service to the need for compliance. Obama/Holden have made it clear - in word and deed - that, if the law doesn't allow them to accomplish their agenda, they will ignore laws they don't like. The litany of game changing, unilateral legal actions taken (orand theories presented by this admin's legal team that effect us on a day to day basis and erode at our Constitutional protections have been stunning. Most don't get a lot of press (some do), but those decrying Bush's intrusions hadn't seen anything compared to the Obama/Holden BS.
It's not just what they actually do, it's what they try to do. Sure, lawyers zealously defending their private clients make some crazy arguments it's what they are paid to do - but the Justice Department's "client" should be the Constitution and Holden has all but said "Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!"
As a lawyer, some of the arguments presented by these guys are truly intellectually offensive. They
know they are twisting precedent and being intellectually disingenuous but they justify their legal positions by claiming it is popular or the right thing to do. Thus, rather than building real consensus, reaching across the aisle to do the hard work of carving out compromise through the Constitutionally prescribed process, and, thus, affecting real change in the fabric of society, this administration has bypassed the legislative process and constantly warped the word and spirit existing laws in order to rule through executive regulation/fiat which - for good reason - has only minimal judicial oversight. The result is governance by rules and regulations that do not have broad support or understanding throughout the entire population and this, in turn, creates a disrespect for and an antagonistic approach to the legal process.
---> Ultimately, IMHO, the reaction is to a President constantly shoving an agenda of big government down the country's throat that depresses real growth while at the same time creating no real benefit for middle class families. AND when Republicans reflected the mood of their constituents by saying "No" Obama calls them "obstructionists." For all his talk of conciliation, Obama was as intractable as the opposition. Because he could initiate legislation from the Presidential soap box and the Dems had control of the Senate, the Dems were able to constantly able put Republicans on their heels. This approach, however, completely underestimated their popular support - as evidenced by the massive swing 2010 swing in the House.
[One thing to note - When Obama came into office, the Dems held 256 Congressional seats to Reps 178 and held a 57 to 41 advantage in the Senate. NOW the Reps have a 234 to 201 advantage in the House and at least a 51 to 49 advantage in the Senate. Thus, on Obama's watch, the Dems have lost both houses of Congress. Further, prior to Obama, no President has lost as many seats as he has over the course of their term.]
In truth, if it weren't for Democrats holding the popular ground on social issues (legalization of pot, gay marriage, abortion rights - sorry folks, the hippies won the cultural revolution, live with it), they would have been blown out.
Bottom line, this election creates a potential win-win for the Republicans. IF they create an agenda, pass bills relating to governing (immigration reform for example) and put them before Obama, he and the Dems become the obstructionists if he blocks their agenda. On the other hand, if the Dems work with R's to break through the gridlock, then in 2016 the R's claim "Look, once we had the ability to affect change - rather than just try and stop bad laws - we did it!"
If the Republicans don't shoot themselves in the foot (not a given by a long shot), come up with a real agenda, and back off some of their hard line social stances, the 2014 Republican wave will be a deluge in 2016.