Obama's First Year

[jayboat]

A pretty good synopsis of a crazy year.

This is by Andrew Sullivan, who I would remind you, is a CONSERVATIVE.

A year ago this week, in even colder temperatures than recently, a young, charismatic, black president-elect gazed across the Mall in Washington DC and gave an Inaugural address that some felt was anti-climactic. It feels like an age ago, and so I went back to see what my first impression was:

"From the moment he gave his election night victory speech, Obama has been signaling great caution in the face of immense challenges. The tone is humble... He is not a messiah and does not act or speak like one. He's a traditionalist in many ways."

A year on, that seems like a good call to me. Those on the left who foolishly saw him as a revolutionary are in a major sulk right now. Those on the right who still see him as a leftist ideologue keep railing against the reality in front of their eyes - as if contemplating a small-c conservative black Democratic president is too much for their brains to grasp. To those who hadn't observed or read or listened closely enough to Obama, the first year therefore remains a baffling record. But to my mind, it is almost exactly what I expected and yet much more than I could have hoped for.

Obama is a liberal pragmatist in politics and a traditional conservative in his understanding of the presidency. Once you grasp this, his first year makes much more sense.

He has marshalled conservative constitutional norms - against the radical claims of Bush and Cheney with respect to the presidency - in defense of a liberal restoration of the importance of government. This has made for a frustrating year for those who want instant results - because he has often deferred to Congress; or those who want short-term tactical political coups - because he prefers strategy to tactics. But for anyone taking the long view, it is hard to see where Obama has really gone wrong.

What mistakes has he made?

His inheritance is one even Republicans concede was the worst since Reagan's: a global economy spiraling into a possible Second Great Depression; a deficit exploding just as long-term debt was poised to enter the red zone; failing banks; an imploding car industry; two flailing wars; a deeply polarized country; a mortgage crisis; a collapse in America's moral standing after the Cheney torture regime; 30 million Americans with no health insurance; crumbling domestic infrastructure; and eight wasted years in the fight to mitigate climate change.

So where did he go wrong? Was the stimulus too big or too small? In retrospect, it looks like a pretty good balance in putting a bottom under the economy without adding too much debt. Was the bank rescue insufficient, as many liberals at the time argued? Nope. If you judge by results, Obama got it right: no nationalization and targeted bailout money led to a stunning turn-around in which many of the major recipients of aid were able to pay it back within a year. Last week, Obama announced a big new tax on the banks to get back the rest and is preparing a major new bill for financial re-regulation. In other words, he didn't succumb to leftist populsim or right-wing ideology. He neither attacked the banks nor let them off the hook. And it worked. The global economy has since stabilized - something that was by no means inevitable.

Did Obama make a mistake by sticking with his campaign pledge to reform and expand health insurance in such a perilous economic time? My view is: no. He crafted a compromise bill that would provide insurance to 30 million people, reduce the deficit, and bring the drug and insurance companies along. Such a result enraged the left, and sent the right into a tizzy of fury - but it will endure as the biggest social reform since Lyndon Johnson if it survives the Massachusetts special election. Did he err by allowing the Congress to take the lead? Well: the Clintons tried dictating to Congress and look how that turned out. No president has succeeded in this area before, in good times and bad. Obama got his reform in a year of economic crisis. The further you remove yourself from this, the more impressive the achievement is.

His first Supreme Court nominee? Sonia Sotomayor was a smooth, shrewd choice, rewarding Hispanics (who support health reform by massive margins, by the way), and elevating a competent, moderate liberal. His war management? Again, you see the caution of the first Bush, led by Clinton and Gates at State and Defense. Obama kept the second Bush's timetable for Iraq withdrawal, dispatched three Somali pirates, intensified the drone attacks on al Qaeda, saw a huge drop in al Qaeda's popularity in the Muslim world, a huge rise in pro-American sentiment around the world, and recrafted an Afghanistan strategy that won both Democratic support and the enthusiasm of General Stanley McChrystal. I retain severe doubts about the future in both Iraq and Afghanistan and suspect both efforts to create stable states there are doomed. But I have learned to reserve judgment in the fog of war and neither of Obama's big decisions here seemed obviously misjudged. They seemed like the least worst option on the table.

More broadly, his quiet demotion of inflammatory rhetoric in the war on Jihadist terrorism in favor of talking softly and taking one Qaeda leader out at a time strikes me as a shrewder way to win this war than Bush's grandstanding. On Iran, he helped the Green Movement immensely by removing the "Great Satan" card from the Khamenei junta's weakening hand. If he can target sanctions precisely at the Revolutionary Guard, he could help some more. But his breakthrough was in understanding - as any conservative should - that this is the Iranians' revolution, not America's. And the job of the West is to get out of the way.

His only obvious failure has been Israel. He misjudged the intransigence of Netanyahu and the power of his support on Capitol Hill. But he will keep persisting in trying to rescue the Jewish state from the perils of its own hubris and paranoia.

And on the social issues, he has stepped right back to help unwind polarization, and allow society to evolve and federalism to work. By merely refusing to use federal agents to police states where medical marijuana has been legalized, he has all but ended cannabis prohibition in large swathes of the country without lifting a finger. Although his term saw marriage equality lose in Maine, it also saw gay marriage rights come to the US capital, Washington DC, and the debate shift so much that we are now watching a Reaganite conservative, Ted Olson, argue that the California initiative that denied marriage to gays violated the equal protection clause of the federal constitution.

He has also failed to end the cultural and partisan polarization in America. But he has not empowered it. The energy for this polarization has come from the hard left (which is angry at him) and the hard right, which, to a great extent, has gone completely bonkers in the wake of their defeat in 2008. This rabid conservatism - one that seeks more tax cuts as debt spirals, that thinks Gitmo is an asset in the war on terror, that wants no extension of health insurance, no bailouts, no stimulus - may well ride some populist anger to short term success at the ballot box (watch Massachusetts' by-election next Tuesday). But under Obama, the Republicans have become whiter, more extreme, more religious, and synonymous in the public mind with polarizing fugures like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn beck. This may be a good ratings strategy for a cable network like Fox News, but it's a highly risky one for a party attempting to win back the center.

And Obama himself? Suffice it to say that his first year revealed something we already knew. He is a very cool customer, a very shrewd strategist, and has also managed to marshall the stagecraft and elegance to inhabit the role of the presidency with more ease and grace than anyone since Reagan. Two years ago, a black president was unimaginable. Now it seems like background noise. Like all of Obama's revolutions, this was a quiet one. But in the eye of history, my guess is it will be seen as game-changing - for America and the world.

[Ted]

Well, Andrew ain't no conservative, but I am. And as for what he has done in his first year- A+. Now he has had help in the form of Pelosi and Reid, but if we are rating him I say A+, best job he could have done.

No one could have moved the country back to the right as fast as he has. Nor could (or has) anyone have dropped so precipitously in the polls to show the Republicans what the people want.....and don't want. Yep, he has put the country on the Right track and we shall all prosper from it, heck several Republican governors and Scott Brown are prospering from it right now. So I say BRAVO Mr. Obama, thanks for reinforcing the principles and ideas that made this country great!

[fund razor]

Yes. I agree. Mr. Obama has been fantastic for the conservative movement.

Kind of like a black Carter, but with less administrative experience.

[Expensive Date]

He also made the market a traders dream

[OldSchool]

Kind of like a black Carter, but with less administrative experience.

Perfect!!!!!!

Let's wait for the results from the Mass. Senate race to see just how President Obama's first year affect the Dems. If this Brown guy gets within 10% of winning, there is trouble for the Dems in November..BIG TIME


Notice that there was no name calling in me expressing my opinion.

[Tommy Gun]

Oh, this is going to be fun!

A pretty good synopsis of a crazy year.

You mean good as defined by Cheech and Chong...man that was some good sh!t?


"From the moment he gave his election night victory speech, Obama has been signaling great caution in the face of immense challenges. The tone is humble... He is not a messiah and does not act or speak like one. He's a traditionalist in many ways."

Humble...you mean like Chad Ochocinco or Terrill Owens?

A year on, that seems like a good call to me. Those on the left who foolishly saw him as a revolutionary are in a major sulk right now. Those on the right who still see him as a leftist ideologue keep railing against the reality in front of their eyes - as if contemplating a small-c conservative black Democratic president is too much for their brains to grasp. To those who hadn't observed or read or listened closely enough to Obama, the first year therefore remains a baffling record. But to my mind, it is almost exactly what I expected and yet much more than I could have hoped for.

I agree he's pretty much pizzed everyone off.

Obama is a liberal pragmatist in politics and a traditional conservative in his understanding of the presidency. Once you grasp this, his first year makes much more sense.

Ahh, a pragmatist...in other words A LIAR.

He has marshalled conservative constitutional norms - against the radical claims of Bush and Cheney with respect to the presidency - in defense of a liberal restoration of the importance of government.

What? What? WHAT? This guy is trashing the constitution.

This has made for a frustrating year for those who want instant results - because he has often deferred to Congress; or those who want short-term tactical political coups - because he prefers strategy to tactics.

He has no original thoughts; he is Pelosi and Reid's puppet.


But for anyone taking the long view, it is hard to see where Obama has really gone wrong.

True, he has given rise to conservatism and awakened many who had ignored goverment for so long.

What mistakes has he made?

His inheritance is one even Republicans concede was the worst since Reagan's: a global economy spiraling into a possible Second Great Depression; a deficit exploding just as long-term debt was poised to enter the red zone; failing banks; an imploding car industry; two flailing wars; a deeply polarized country; a mortgage crisis; a collapse in America's moral standing after the Cheney torture regime; 30 million Americans with no health insurance; crumbling domestic infrastructure; and eight wasted years in the fight to mitigate climate change.

So where did he go wrong? Was the stimulus too big or too small? In retrospect, it looks like a pretty good balance in putting a bottom under the economy without adding too much debt. Was the bank rescue insufficient, as many liberals at the time argued? Nope. If you judge by results, Obama got it right: no nationalization and targeted bailout money led to a stunning turn-around in which many of the major recipients of aid were able to pay it back within a year. Last week, Obama announced a big new tax on the banks to get back the rest and is preparing a major new bill for financial re-regulation. In other words, he didn't succumb to leftist populsim or right-wing ideology. He neither attacked the banks nor let them off the hook. And it worked. The global economy has since stabilized - something that was by no means inevitable.

[B]So lets take credit for the Tarp program started under Bush, and lets quadruple (so far) the defecit, and lets hand out untold entitlements under the guise of "stmulus" and not really fix the infrastructure, and lets give rights to terrorists and try them in civilian courts, and lets pretend global warming really does exisit so we can waste millions on a conference and go part.y/B]

Did Obama make a mistake by sticking with his campaign pledge to reform and expand health insurance in such a perilous economic time? My view is: no. He crafted a compromise bill that would provide insurance to 30 million people, reduce the deficit, and bring the drug and insurance companies along. Such a result enraged the left, and sent the right into a tizzy of fury - but it will endure as the biggest social reform since Lyndon Johnson if it survives the Massachusetts special election. Did he err by allowing the Congress to take the lead? Well: the Clintons tried dictating to Congress and look how that turned out. No president has succeeded in this area before, in good times and bad. Obama got his reform in a year of economic crisis. The further you remove yourself from this, the more impressive the achievement is.

He has not stuck to his campaign pledge of transparency, has given credence to earmarks and closed door deals, and has a bill that neither party really supports, won't reduce the cost of health care, and may go down in flames due to a special election in the state of man who the very bill is allegedly in honor of. Wouldn't that be special LOL!

His first Supreme Court nominee? Sonia Sotomayor was a smooth, shrewd choice, rewarding Hispanics (who support health reform by massive margins, by the way), and elevating a competent, moderate liberal. His war management? Again, you see the caution of the first Bush, led by Clinton and Gates at State and Defense. Obama kept the second Bush's timetable for Iraq withdrawal, dispatched three Somali pirates, intensified the drone attacks on al Qaeda, saw a huge drop in al Qaeda's popularity in the Muslim world, a huge rise in pro-American sentiment around the world, and recrafted an Afghanistan strategy that won both Democratic support and the enthusiasm of General Stanley McChrystal. I retain severe doubts about the future in both Iraq and Afghanistan and suspect both efforts to create stable states there are doomed. But I have learned to reserve judgment in the fog of war and neither of Obama's big decisions here seemed obviously misjudged. They seemed like the least worst option on the table.

Congratualtions, he didn't follow thru on his stupid campaign promise to be out of Iraq in 11 months and is listening to his Generals...although he took his damn time in deciding. And as for him "crafting" the plan...puleeese. This is the same stooge who wouldn't admit the surge worked after it had.

More broadly, his quiet demotion of inflammatory rhetoric in the war on Jihadist terrorism in favor of talking softly and taking one Qaeda leader out at a time strikes me as a shrewder way to win this war than Bush's grandstanding. On Iran, he helped the Green Movement immensely by removing the "Great Satan" card from the Khamenei junta's weakening hand. If he can target sanctions precisely at the Revolutionary Guard, he could help some more. But his breakthrough was in understanding - as any conservative should - that this is the Iranians' revolution, not America's. And the job of the West is to get out of the way.

RUBE, yeah those Iranians are really standing down on that nuclear program.

His only obvious failure has been Israel. He misjudged the intransigence of Netanyahu and the power of his support on Capitol Hill. But he will keep persisting in trying to rescue the Jewish state from the perils of its own hubris and paranoia.

And on the social issues, he has stepped right back to help unwind polarization,

Called a white cop stupid for executing proper procedure against an angry, insulting black man.

and allow society to evolve and federalism to work. By merely refusing to use federal agents to police states where medical marijuana has been legalized, he has all but ended cannabis prohibition in large swathes of the country without lifting a finger. Although his term saw marriage equality lose in Maine, it also saw gay marriage rights come to the US capital, Washington DC, and the debate shift so much that we are now watching a Reaganite conservative, Ted Olson, argue that the California initiative that denied marriage to gays violated the equal protection clause of the federal constitution.

Dope and Gays, NICE!

He has also failed to end the cultural and partisan polarization in America. But he has not empowered it.

What, what, WHAT! He, Pelosi and Reid are directly responsible for empowering further polarization. And as for his promise of working across the aisle, another blatant lie.

The energy for this polarization has come from the hard left (which is angry at him) and the hard right, which, to a great extent, has gone completely bonkers in the wake of their defeat in 2008. This rabid conservatism - one that seeks more tax cuts as debt spirals, that thinks Gitmo is an asset in the war on terror, that wants no extension of health insurance, no bailouts, no stimulus - may well ride some populist anger to short term success at the ballot box (watch Massachusetts' by-election next Tuesday). But under Obama, the Republicans have become whiter, more extreme, more religious, and synonymous in the public mind with polarizing fugures like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn beck. This may be a good ratings strategy for a cable network like Fox News, but it's a highly risky one for a party attempting to win back the center.

Risky alright because the Dem's are soon to be thrown out of office like dead fish.

And Obama himself? Suffice it to say that his first year revealed something we already knew. He is a very cool customer, a very shrewd strategist, and has also managed to marshall the stagecraft and elegance to inhabit the role of the presidency with more ease and grace than anyone since Reagan. Two years ago, a black president was unimaginable. Now it seems like background noise. Like all of Obama's revolutions, this was a quiet one. But in the eye of history, my guess is it will be seen as game-changing - for America and the world.

One word - TELEPROMPTER

[Wobble]

I find that to be for the most part, a good summary of the past year. I find it hard to deny that he has done a fair job in a time of great problems.

I also tend to agree with the writers assessment that the far right's rhetoric is damaging our party

[BBB725]

Any president will get blamed for the bad and take credit for the good, it's really the Senate and the House that run things, all the POTUS can do is veto and even then congress can over ride him or her

[Ted]

1st year, by the numbers:

7,949.09—Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 20, 2009.

10,609.65—Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 15, 2010.

WIN

13 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of January 2009.

14.7 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of December 2009.

LOSS

7.7 percent—Unemployment rate January 2009

10.0 percent—Unemployment rate December 2009

LOSS

$787 billion—Cost of economic stimulus approved by Congress.

$10.6 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 20, 2009.

$12.3 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 14, 2009.

LOSS

$296.4 billion—Federal spending from the financial crisis bailout fund before Jan. 20, 2009.

$173 billion—Federal spending from the financial crisis bailout fund after Jan. 20, 2009.

WIN

$165 billion—Amount of bailout funds repaid by banks and automakers.

50/50

139—Bank failures between Jan. 20, 2009, and Jan. 14, 2010.

LOSS

274,399—Number of properties that received forclosure-related notices in January 2009.

349,519—Number of properties that received forclosure-related notices in December 2009.

LOSS

34,400—U.S. troops in Afghanistan in January 2009.

70,000—U.S. troops in Afghanistan as of Jan. 12, 2010.

LOSS at least to anti-war backers and Nobel Committee

319—U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan from January 2009 through Jan. 15, 2010.

LOSS

139,500—U.S. troops in Iraq in January 2009.

111,000—U.S. troops in Iraq as of Jan. 12, 2010.

PROMISE TO PULL THEM OUT NOT FULFILLED- LOSS

152—U.S. military deaths in Iraq from January 2009 through Jan. 15, 2010.

LOSS

539—Appointments to top federal policy positions submitted to the Senate

352—Appointments confirmed by the Senate.

LOSS (His own guys)

180—Appointments in top policy positions carried over from the Bush administration.

12—Formal news conferences.

21—Foreign countries visited.

29—States visited.

10—Visits to Camp David. (Also vacation time?)

2—Vacations.

[Chris]

Didn't the economy tank because of bad mortgages? I seem to remember people losing their hoses being one of those causes behind them no longer buying cars. And I seem to remember the Dems having a pretty big hand in wanting everyone to own a home regardless of ability or willingness to pay for it.

On global warming, I'm still thinking we're yet to have definitive scientific evidence on that one. And in reality, the only way to stop it even if it is what they say it is would be to have about a third as many people as we do now. So who are we getting rid of?

Just jumping around, but on the economy, is the "stimulus" really stimulating anything? In the end, it's dough for every hopeless Dem pet project that couldn't get traction over the last 30 years. The term "shovel ready" is a joke- but maybe a good one. the only thing that's going to be shovel-ready are the legislative jobs of a bunch of Dem legislators this fall.

I love this line from the author-

In retrospect, it looks like a pretty good balance in putting a bottom under the economy without adding too much debt.

Not bad if you're not the father of the children that are going to get to pay it back. I lived through the boom in the Japanese economy and the huge rise in their US investment binge. I remember when they bought Rockefeller Center. You would have thoughtit was Pearl Harbor 1980's. The Chinese learned from that. They're not buying our private assets, they're buying our economy. Let's hurry up and sell them another chunk. If bailing out the banks and automakers was a sound investment, the Chinese would have done it themselves. And if it were truly necessary to do this to prevent the collapse of our economy, the Chinese would have done that themselves.

Health care- when did this become a part of the Bill of Rights? Life, Liberty and Happiness? Did we ditch "the pursuit of"? The money has to come from somewhere- preferrably not the same place the banks and automakers got theirs.

Here's another real winner for you-

But he will keep persisting in trying to rescue the Jewish state from the perils of its own hubris and paranoia.

Sounds like Israel is it's own worst enemy, doesn't it? If Canada was launching rockets into Buffalo, professing to be fast-tracking the development of a nuclear weapon, building long range missiles and denouncing the right of the U.S. to exist, would your typical Western New Yorker have any reason for concern?

In my mind, Obama's greatest achievment to date has been that he's proven that a black man could be elected to the presidency. But most of us already knew that. And we knew that once it happened it wouldn't mean a damn thing. We've had black men in board rooms and war rooms for quite some time now. And when they get there, they always cease being black and they begin to be judged on their abilities and performance exclusively. And whan they fail, they're tossed to the curb not for their skin color, but for their inability to perform. And that's how I see 2012 shaking out.

[fund razor]

I find it more remarkable that a man with zero administrative experience got into the white house than that a black man did it.

[sledge]

Didn't the economy tank because of bad mortgages? I seem to remember people losing their hoses being one of those causes behind them no longer buying cars.

Actually, you have to look at what caused people not to be able to pay their mortgages. It started with "subprime" borrowers. That group is like the canary in the mineshaft...an early indicator. The economy tanked because rates were increased too much, too fast...after a period of artificially low rates. Economic whiplash.

If bailing out the banks and automakers was a sound investment, the Chinese would have done it themselves. And if it were truly necessary to do this to prevent the collapse of our economy, the Chinese would have done that themselves.

The Chinese are contributing to the prevention of the collapse of our economy by managing their currency. It's much more powerful than buying our assets.

BO hasn't implemented one unique, successful program so far.

[2112]

#$*

double click to enlarge

.

[Steve 1]

The rule by EO is a nice touch as with the Czars with the Marxist flair. Obama and ACORN were a big part of the mortgage mess.

[BBB725]

On global warming, I'm still thinking we're yet to have definitive scientific evidence on that one. And in reality, the only way to stop it even if it is what they say it is would be to have about a third as many people as we do now. So who are we getting rid of?

Sailboaters?

[Sea-Dated]

They forgot to mention that he has expanded our debt by more than all the other Presidents combined and he did that in one year.

I would consider that a FAIL as well.

[catastrophe]

They forgot to mention that he has expanded our debt by more than all the other Presidents combined and he did that in one year.

I would consider that a FAIL as well.

What is a FAIL is to not recognize that the economic situation was vastly different. And it doesnt matter who or what caused that situation to exist...it existed.

[Bobcat]

It didn't affect the people who voted for him........they've never had a job in the first place. hands down worst President ever.

[Ted]

What is a FAIL is to not recognize that the economic situation was vastly different. And it doesnt matter who or what caused that situation to exist...it existed.

But look at the numbers, throwing all that money did virtually NO good for the man on the street. And that same man, his kids, and his grandkids will be paying on this debt for the foreseeable future. Billions of dollars = no results= FAIL.

[jayboat]

But look at the numbers, throwing all that money did virtually NO good for the man on the street. And that same man, his kids, and his grandkids will be paying on this debt for the foreseeable future. Billions of dollars = no results= FAIL.

I would point out that preventing a complete financial collapse DID benefit the man on the street.