AP: Preparing Country for Failing Obama Presidency, Excuses Abound

  • Bookmark and Share

Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press seems to be setting the table for a certain amount of failure from Barack Obama by helping lower expectations among the people. Her latest AP report is as much as warning that, since he is facing "heady challenges," we shouldn't expect too much from him. In other words, before he has even really faced anything at all, Sidoti is making excuses for him almost in the mold of an affirmative action hire. It seems a perfect example of using the soft bigotry of low expectations to make preemptory excuses for Obama.

At the start, she seems to be downplaying any possibility that Obama will shine by noting how tough are the challenges he faces. Even the headline warns that "Obama faces heady challenges, and they're growing." But, the reality is few presidents in modern time faced a placid world upon taking office. Obama does not face any worse times than did Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan or any number of modern American presidents.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

But, Sidoti's warning seems more angled to lower expectations with the hope of preventing Obama's fans from early finger pointing than to offer any serious discussion of what Obama faces come January.

Amusingly, after the Old Media spent the last four years saying that experience doesn't matter, Sidoti starts right off lowering expectations by reminding us that Obama has little experience.

President-elect Barack Obama, relatively young and inexperienced, is facing a rapidly growing list of monumental challenges as he prepares to take the reins of a nation in turmoil.

You can almost feel Sidoti saying to her pals, "now don't get all upset at our Barack. After all, things are really mean out there! It's gonna be really, really hard for The One."

She notes that Obama is "sounding dire" these days since his dreamy election and also seems to act as if the failure of the bailout is somehow one of the evils he faces.

He spoke during a week in which Congress killed a bailout of the failing auto industry, the government reported that jobless claims spiked to their highest levels in more than a quarter-century, and the Treasury Department said the nation registered a record federal budget deficit for November.

The failure of the bailout linked directly to the other issues makes it seem as if she is stating as a fact that the failure of the bailout is a bad thing.

Then we get the historically illiterate Liz Sidoti we are familiar with...

With woes foreign and domestic on more fronts than even Franklin Delano Roosevelt encountered when he took office in the midst of the Great Depression, Obama will be sworn in as the country's 44th president in January.

Sorry, Liz, but times today are NOT worse than the WWII era! Times today are not easy, certainly, but we are in nowhere near as bad a shape as was the Great Depression followed quickly with an all-encompassing world war that Roosevelt faced.

Sidoti next amusingly worded her reporting of the Obama connection to the Illinois governor's growing scandal.

At the same time, Obama may be drawn into an unfolding political scandal over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged efforts to trade the president-elect's former Senate seat for personal gain. The ongoing federal investigation could ensnare some of his top advisers and taint the self-styled reformer who has tried to steer clear of notorious Chicago politics.

I like how Sidoti said "drawn in" as if he stands outside it all. Drawn in is absolutely the wrong rhetoric to describe this mess. If Obama ends up becoming ensnared in this scandal it won't be because he was "drawn in" but because he was there in the FIRST place. If it is found that either Obama himself or one of his staff was involved they were not "drawn in" but part of the problem at the beginning.

But, you see, this is the sort of softening of the situation that we are seeing in Sidoti's report. Obama isn't corrupt he was merely "drawn in" to this corruption investigation as if he was skipping through the woods to grandmother's house and that snarling wolf happened upon him in all his innocence.

Next, after noting that Obama has promised an ambitious list of big government programs, Sidoti is careful to warn us that things are so bad that "some priorities may fall to the wayside or be done piecemeal."

That's right, folks, if Obama can't do all he promised, why it won't be his fault. See, things are really tough these days! Thanks for the warning, Liz.

And then guess what? That's right Liz found us an "expert" to be all experty for us.

"There's a lot of ground giving under him. It's a terrific challenge," said Fred Greenstein, a Princeton University professor emeritus of politics and a presidential historian.

"From one perspective, it's as if he's about to take over the captain's job on a sinking ship. From the other perspective, he could be on a glide path to Mount Rushmore if he does a combination of morale building and energizing people while dealing with the economic distress by producing some constructive changes in the society and in the economy."

"The striking thing is he doesn't seem scared," Greenstein added.

Gosh, he's just so darn unafraid, isn't he?

Sidoti goes off again to sonorously inform us that Obama has no experience.

Indeed, Obama exudes confidence. He has surrounded himself with people in his incoming White House and Cabinet who have decades more experience than him in government, as well as foreign and domestic policy. They include big names such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Larry Summers, Tom Daschle and Robert Gates, longtime Washington insiders.

Comparatively, Obama has been on the national stage for a short time. He was introduced to the country during the Democratic convention in 2004 when he was in the Illinois Legislature and running for the U.S. Senate. Age 47, he will become president after serving just four years in the Senate.

So, all throughout the campaign the media touted that Obama didn't need experience. He was the one we were waiting for. Now, all of a sudden, they tout how great it is that he has surrounded himself with experienced politicos from decades past. NOW experience is important?

Liz is so desperate to pump up Obama that she then resorts to dismissing Franklin Delano Roosevelt as having come to office in easy times. (my bold)

Most historians liken the situation facing Obama to that which confronted Roosevelt -- but the comparison does not seem to do justice to the colossal challenges Obama is facing.

Roosevelt was already an established politician when he came into office at the depths of the Great Depression in a society with no safety net for the suffering. And the economy was much worse then than it is now. But he did not have two wars on his plate, nor a political scandal swirling nearby. And Roosevelt did not have a planet suffering from global warming and watching its natural resources dwindle.

So, FDR had an easy time of it because there was no global warming? Please, what nonsense.

Sidoti also reveals her ignorance of the differences between Hoover and Roosevelt.

He also let his four-month transition pass by keeping his distance from Republican Herbert Hoover. The two men had sharp policy differences over how to address the Great Depression, and Roosevelt stayed mum between his election and his inauguration.

This is historical illiteracy plain and simple. There was little difference but one of scope between the big government ideas that Hoover had and those FDR had. Hoover had begun many of the same programs and floated many of the same intrusive ideas that FDR merely made larger when he launched his New Deal plans. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court shot down a large part of FDR's early programs as unconstitutional, too. Sidoti has no clue what she is talking about.

Sidoti then gives us another example of her trying to cover for any possible Obama failure to come. She attempts to cover Barack by taking the left's favorite whipping boy and extending his reach. You guessed it, it's Bush's fault.

Politically, with things so bad, Obama can claim any change for the better as a success. If the economic and security situation deteriorates further, he can rightly say he inherited a mess.

And now Sidoti has unknowingly stumbled upon why FDR was considered such a great president even though he was an utter failure until WWII began. He merely kept blaming Hoover. And this time, the media will help Obama blame Bush in like manner.

I sure hope that Liz Sidoti is getting paid well by team Obama for her efforts at excuse making for The One?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interesting that the "young

Interesting that the "young and inexperienced" description is in the very first sentence of the article!

I've said before that we are in for constant repetition of Bush understated the problems. Things are so much worse than we imagined!

As for the rest of your post, Warner, it's plain that history means nothing to them.  They simply spout their own version of it to create the scenario that they want.

BRRRRPT!  BRRRRPT!  BRRRRRRPT!

 

 

Yahoo news disses O

Here is the link to the Yahoo story which has been buried, had to google it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081213/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mounting_challenges 

Experience matters, now. 

Experience matters, now.  It surely did not during the campaign.  Now, he is inexperienced, but surrounded by "longtime Washington".  But, during the campaign, he was to be considered an "outsider", which was a good thing!

It would appear, that, like Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us".  Now, suddenly, that hopey-changey thing is not enough.  Now, with all the problems of the world on his shoulders, now, experience seems to matter.  Same guy, same experience level, but now, suddenly, experience matters, so that the poll numbers do not fall.

Wake up People!  As the commercial says. Of course, the "people" should have been awakened before November, not in Mid-December.

Close, Pete

The "people" should have been informed before November, not propagandized.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

The Young and the Restless

I knew sooner or later these guys were going to get restless with the dude.

Maybe buyers remorse has set in.

One can only hope for this change!  \irony

No buyers remorse

Don't misread this. The Obama backers are not criticizing him.

They are providing cover, lest the Non-Obamaniacs start saying "I told you so."

These folks will never, ever, turn on The One, no matter what.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

Our nation is suffering from a MASS PSYCHOSIS induced by

the constant, consistent and uniform BLEATING of the lame-stream media sheeple who are bound and determined on MAKING the news instead of reporting it.  This piece by Sidoti is a good example of a "WORD SALAD" sprinkled with a heavy dose of DELUSION.  BARRKY is a fake president THROUGH AND THROUGH and anyone who won't see that is SELF-DELUDED.

well, now they've made it apparent that....

...even though he won't be able to accomplish anything in the next four years - of course, george w's fault - he'll still be the greatest occupant of the office ever.  since the first term is going to be lost to cleaning up the mess left behind, let's just go ahead and plan now to "hope" for "change" in the second term that's certain to follow!  hey, at least you can't say the msm isn't looking to the future, right?  wow, frightening.....

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

Mainstream Apologist Media

I wonder if Liz is having any second thoughts on the Zero's "inflate your tires" policy?

Warner

Obama has said himself before and after he was the President-elect that things will be very tough.

We are still in two wars. The threat of a biological attack grows more every day. North Korea has nukes, Iran can soon have a nuke, tens of thousands of soldiers are injured mentally and physicall. Not to mention the situation with the Russia which is more tense than it has been since before Reagan took office.

10.5 trillion in debt, major banks on the verge of collapse, auto industry can cost over 3 million jobs and millions more retirees could lose pensions and health benefits. Record deficits, Oil prices that could spike at any time

Reagan inherited a bad economy and the cold war, but Obama faces more difficult challenges imo.

He had my vote

Your partisan opinion that

Your partisan opinion that Obambi has it worse is noted. A review of REAL history, though, might tend to mitigate your assumptions.

Warner

I believe that Obama has it worse, there is nothing partisan about it. Oh and I did not even mention that unemployment is the worst it has been for 30 years and job cuts are the worst that it has been for 26 years.

More Americans are in danger of losing their homes than anytime in my lifetime as well.

I would have said the same of McCain if he won the election, but he did not.

 

He had my vote

People are losing their homes because they are stupid

The vast majority took mortgages on homes they could not afford and these same people have no savings. They should lose their homes. Unemployment will only go up thanks to government intervention in the economy. If Obama wants to fix the problem then he needs to drastically cut government spending, regulations and cut taxes. Everything else will only make it worse - including worthless stimulus measures.

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

I call BS

"I would have said the same of McCain if he won the election, but he did not."

No, shawn, you would not have. You would not have been making excuses for McCain, saying "give the guy a break," and pointing out what a hard row to hoe he had. Nope, uh-uh, wasn't going to happen.

You can't seriously expect anyone here to believe that.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

Say what you want IJ

.......but I voted for McCain, not Obama. Too bad you have to accuse me of being a liar as your new debating tactic.

He had my vote

You can't be serious, shawn

There's nothing "tactical" about stating something so obvious. You voted for McCain? Would you care to explain why?

Why would you come here and take the liberal side of virtually every debate, and then vote for McCain? You should at least understand why I find that very, very hard to believe.

And, since we'll never know how you would have responded to a McCain victory, we'll never know if I'm the liar here or you are.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

I voted for McCain......

because having controll of the Presidency and maybe a fillibuster proof senate was too dangerous in any party.

I also did not want to give free health care to illegal immigrants.

He had my vote

Traffic-jam

I was editing my post when you posted, and I got the "access denied" page, lol.

Anyway, my edit was to say that after some research, I would take you at your word about voting for McCain. And your reason here makes sense. But, does that make you a "one-issue voter?"

However, I would still maintain that you would not give McCain the benefit of as much doubt as you're giving Obama. I'm sure McCain wouldn't have deserved it, in your (and the media's) eyes, since the problems are inherited from his blood-brother, Bush.

All these problems are (and will be) portrayed as "Republican" problems, and Obama will get the total pass on every aspect of them. McCain would have never gotten that.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

Indiana Joe

 " But, does that make you a "one-issue voter?""

I would not say that, but I admit that I did not make up mind on who to vote for until after all the debates were done, and my vote could have easily have gone for Obama.

When George Bush got voted in 2000 I gave him a chance, I was not impressed with his first term, and voted for Kerry in 04. I would have gave McCain the same courtesy the one I am giving Obama and Bush. If you do not believe that, I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you.

Oh and  I did misread, you comment below, I was in a hurry to get out the door. I apologize.

He had my vote

Courtesy? Obama has already proven to be economically illiterate

Economic Illiteracy Is Not the Change We Need (Art Carden, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)

This is not some politically correct game, this is the U.S. economy at stake.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

We are stuck with Obama for at least 4 years

He has not even his oathe yet and your just speculating on what he is going to do. Yes I agree the US economy is at stake no matter who won the election.

I feel I owe whoever wins the Presidency, at the least the opportunity and time to make it happen.

He had my vote

shawn... You don't have

shawn...

You don't have to speculate about what he is going to do in all cases at all...do you listen to his pressers, did you today with his pathetic destructive leftist green team...that is going to hurt us all shawn, did you listen to any of the words from each of them, especially O.

another thing, "I was for off-shore drilling, before I was against it." Kerry style of back-tracking...would be amusing if it wouldn't hurt us all. 

Really shawn, listen to his agenda...people should have from the start...oh well, we will be paying in more ways than one.

 

by the way, when it comes to just this issue, McC wasn't and isn't any better, he will vote and support all of this destruction.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

bt

Don't get me wrong, I am very scared of what the future holds. With the shape the US is in now, it will be a hard fix no matter who is in the oval office.

My point is, I feel I owe to Obama to give him a chance to see if he can make things better. I gave the same courtesy to Dubya.

Many folks here are saying that they will not give Obama a chance because Democrats did not give Dubya a fair chance. I know you don't like Obama very much, but I believe it is more important for our country to be united than revenge.

He had my vote

How about

How about united IN revenge? Is that good? (LOL)

Actually, I wholly disagree with the "give them a chance" idea. In fact, I think it works AGAINST our very system as well as plain morality to do so. After all, if the party out of power is just going to roll over and play dead, why HAVE another party?

I fully support the ones that refuse to give Obama a chance. Just as I agree that the enemy has their right not to give the next GOP a chance.

You should remember the whole loyal opposition concept is aimed at holding the other party accountable for their actions. If there is no opposition, there is no reason to be held to account and, therefore, no reason for those in power to fear violating the law, morals or social norms.

So, I WANT the GOP to fight this communist of a whelp every step of the way. I do NOT want everyone to roll over, play dead and "give him a chance."

Its a good feeling to have the country united

......unfortunately it took something like 911 to achieve that. Even though we were attacked, it was nice to have the feeling of cohesiveness. The Presidents approval rating was over 80 percent.

I'm not saying to roll over and play dead if he does something you do not agree with, I'm saying its more important for our country to be united than crucifying him before he has even sign a bill or use his veto pen.

 

He had my vote

→ Give him a chance

I agree. We're such a rich country, it should make no difference if we get stuck with supplementing the world's Carbon Footprint as this Preselect has vowed to do.

Just another way of spreading the wealth.  Can't wait until this tax is tacked onto homes and cars so we can really feel the weight of our sins.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

It is not hard to fix the economy, it is actually very simple

The problem is having a good understanding of economics to reduce the size and burden of government.

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Obama 's policies can only hurt the economy

This isn't about giving someone a chance, he has stated what he will do and it will do nothing but make things worse! The only thing the president can do to fix it, is to get government out of the way, did I miss something? Did he say he would do this? So please explain what I am supposed to give him a chance on when he clearly stated what he will do and I know it will not work based on economics and history.

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Obama will have it tough.

Obama will have it tough. Bush has had it just as tough, maybe even tougher having to deal with the press. This same press that is making excuses for Obama even though he hasn't done anything yet and in the same breath bash Bush as he deals with it.

Notice how you go back 26-30 years. Why not just call it like it is and say 'since Carter'?  Also don't forget to mention that it has been the Fat Cat financial institutions that have gotten the U.S. in this mess with Congress right behind them all the way.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Great point, kg.  What

Great point, kg.  What other modern presidents have had to deal with the likes of 9/11, Katrina, the Enron and WorldCom debacles and now a capital market meltdown that was decades in the making, all while having an extremely angry and combative media to contend with almost from day one?  Regardless what Obama faces, he will have the media covering for him for quite some time.  The collective press will ensure that all problems are rightly assigned to Bush and that anything which goes right is because of Obama's great leadership.

"Oh and I did not even

"Oh and I did not even mention that unemployment is the worst it has been for 30 years"

First, the unemployment rate is 6.7%, so let's keep things in perspective. Second, you're just plain wrong.  This time 30 years ago(1978), unemployment was 6% . Wait, looks like you were right. Not.

This time in:

1979: 6%

1980: 7.2%

1981: 8.5%

1982: 10.8%

1983: 8.3%

When Reagan took office in January, 1981, unemployment was 7.5%.  From 1982 to 1983, unemployment was 10%  plus for ten straight months. So much for unemployment being being the worst it has been in 30 years.

"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."

Revisionis History Redux

Other than the housing downturn the recession didn't accelerate until the summer months, contrary to what 20/20 hindsight revisionist economists say.  Right now this recession is still pretty mild. I dont have the foggiest as to whether government intervention (bailouts etc.) or letting companies go into chaper 11 will make the recession worse or better. The Iraq war is mostly wrapped up. Don't pin Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on the Republican party because all efforts to reign these democratic pets in were rebuffed.  

All in all nothing much of terrible note really happened during the Bush Presidency after 9/11. We weren't attacked, the economy was pretty good until the last 6 months. The Patriot Act and Guantanamo and Abu Gharib were Democratic made tempests in teapots and not a fascist takeover of the U.S by the neo-cons.  Except for the leftist/democratic hysteria, delusion and fantasy of catastrophe (and no Bush did not cause Katrina or the Tsunami) his Presidency was pretty benign. So now the media exacerbates the problems so that when the empty suit fails it will be expected because it was Bush's fault and the problems were worse than expected. I submit he definitely does not have it worse by a long shot. Read some history Shawn. Hoover-FDR? FDR-Truman? Truman-Eisenhower? Johnson-Nixon? Nixon-Carter? Carter-Reagan? all of these transitions were worse than this guy's. 

 

Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster

Reagan Understood Economics - Obama is economically illiterate

Obama is economically illiterate and plans to destroy the economy like FDR did.

Economic Illiteracy Is Not the Change We Need (Art Carden, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs (Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D. Economics)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Thx Pop Tech

I know you see this as an opportunity to use your spamming links, but we are not talking about how bad Obama will be, we are talking about the challenges he faces.

Ok, I will say the name. "Sarah Palin". There now this gives you a excuse to use your Palin links again :-)

He had my vote

The Challenges he faces is directly related to what he will do

I don't spam, I inform. Talking about what he faces while ignoring what he plans to do makes no sense. Because what he will do is more important and unfortunately with Obama much more dangerous.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

"I don't spam, I inform"

"I don't spam, I inform "

Well thank you for informing us about Sarah Palins resume, sometimes 5 times in the same thread.

Warners article is talking about the msm lowering expectations for Obama and if he has it any worse than other in coming Presidents.

I know you see it as an opportunity to use your links again, but I feel there is so shortage on how Socialist Obama will bring down America  threads on NB, you can "inform" us on those threads :-)

He had my vote

Please keep exaggerating

Besides the fact that you keep going off topic and then try to claim I am when I am directly talking about Obama and the economy not Palin.

I will use every opportunity to hammer Obama the socialist into the ground, you can count on that.

Again it doesn't matter what the situation is when he goes in, it matters what he trys to do to fix it. All of his ideas are a disaster.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Your opinion is noted. It's

Your opinion is noted. It's wrong, revisionist, and, yes, as partisan as the quoted article. Merely pre-emptive excuse-making, IMO.

But it's noted.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

Well IJ

both you and Warner, said my opinion is partisan, you even went as far as to say that my opinion is wrong and revisionist, but no where do either of you tell why I am wrong?

Are Obama's challenges just everyday run of the mill stuff? Lets go all the way way back to Nixon. Which incoming President had it harder than Obama?

He had my vote

Not saying

I am not saying any incoming president necessarily had it "harder" (though many had it easier). I am saying many of them faced tough times equal to Obama's, that he does NOT face the worst of them.

But, I would say FDR faced worse times than Obama in many ways. Certainly Wilson and Lincoln did. Regan faced very threatening times, as well. LBJ did, too. Ford did as well. Each of these presidents did not face the self same problems that Obama will face, of course. But each had as bad a time to start with as Obama has in total.

I think what we are seeing from you, however, is the assumption that these times are worse than ever and that is not a very historically grounded assumption. It seems that every era is "worse than ever" to those living during it and not interested enough to make a review of the historical record.

In fact, even the things you listed above are really only assumptions of "trouble." Only in hindsight will we be able to say that they WERE trouble in the end. Now, if you use the assumptions of trouble mode of thinking, then it can be applied equally to nearly every president over the last 100 years!

So, for you to pump up Obama's import above any other president without any real proof of what he *did* face (because he hasn't actually faced anything yet) is really only your need to make of him more than he currently is.

Yes he potentially faces some tough decisions and dangerous times. But it is not so different than many others have faced.

Only in hindsight will we be able to say what he REALLY had to deal with. All else is conjecture.

Warner

Thank you for your post. Your right some Presidents had it harder than Obama, However I believe Obama has had it harder than any President in my lifetime and that started with Nixon.

When it comes to military might all my life we were easily better than any other country and nobody dared f with us.

Now we are still better militarily better than anyone else, but in todays tech age,  the threat of a dirty bomb or chemical or even nucleaur attack on home soil is a reality and not a real threat not even a decade ago.

I am also saying the msm is right when there are some extremely challenging things he will have to face when the take the oath of office.

Yes the msm is tilted to the left, but in this case I agree with them that we should not have false expectations.

He had my vote

Well if you're going to

Well if you're going to limit it to "all the way way back to Nixon" doesn't that kind of limit it?

Even at that, do stagflation, 20% unemployment, 12% mortgage rates ring a bell?

Now that I've read it, I agree with Warner:

I think what we are seeing from you, however, is the assumption that
these times are worse than ever and that is not a very historically
grounded assumption. Every era is "worse than ever" those those living during it and not interested enough to make a review of the historical record.

Limbaugh often observes that for most people, history began on the day they were born. 

 

Why you are wrong?

Well, you're wrong because you state things that are not borne out by the facts.

If you mean, give you links and research your statements and prove to you that you are wrong, you're barking up the wrong tree. You make a pronouncement, it's up to you to back it up. Prove to us that you're right.

As for Nixon (pretty short view of history, that), he inherited a "quagmire" of a war ("Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"), had race riots and bombings (courtesy of Bill Ayers, among others), and paying for Johnson's "Great Society" to deal with (that was the beginning of that "$10.5 trillion deficit," btw).

So, whatdayathink? Call it a wash?

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

hmmm Indiana Joe

"As for Nixon (pretty short view of history, that), he inherited a "quagmire" of a war ("Hey hey, LBJ,
how many kids did you kill today"), had race riots and bombings
(courtesy of Bill Ayers, among others), and paying for Johnson's "Great
Society" to deal with (that was the beginning of that "$10.5 trillion deficit," btw).


So, whatdayathink? Call it a wash?"

you named 3 Presidents and three problems. Umm no I will not call it a wash. You said I had to back up my statements, I believe I did in first post, when I brought up the financial problems, the war, and fear of attacks on domestic soil, but I'm sure even if I was even more detailed, you would find something else to whine about.

Or call me a liar. Perhaps you should try your shtick on Daily KOS :-) I have to go out now, you have a lovely day.

 

He had my vote

"3 Presidents?"

No, shawn, I was talking about Nixon. The reference to LBJ was to illustrate that Vietnam was a problem before Nixon got into office. IOW, Nixon "inherited" Vietnam, even though the uninformed still think of it as "Nixon's War." Get it?

And "LBJ" and "Johnson" are the same person. Lyndon Baines Johnson. The "Great Society" is where an awful lot of our "entitlement" programs were born, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, Section 8. And paying for them is a huge drain on our budget. Again, these are costs that were "inherited" by Nixon.

Not three presidents, shawn. And your laundry list is really not "facts" unless you compare it to another list. So, this is my list of Nixon's "problems."

You invited it, remember? So don't you whine about it.

Just when I think you're worth debating, you say some stupid sh*t like that.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

 "you named 3 Presidents

 "you named 3 Presidents and three problems."

Typical lib, seeing things that aren't there, and unable to comprehend what is, lol.  He's talking about one president....Nixon.

"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."

wait shawn

Obama has said himself before and after he was the President-elect that things will be very tough.

He did? The only things I can remember him saying is the ocean will lower and the planet will heal upon his ascension because we are the ones who can bring the change we've been waiting for. Joe Biden gave us a warning about a major crisis, but he was then quickly kept hidden and no one in the media took the time to follow up on what he meant by that, so most Americans don't know that even happened.

In fact, it wasn't so long ago that the AP told us all Obama would certainly "redeem" America because he was "something special" and even as recently as Nov 10 they were publishing polls where readers believed Obama would fix the economy. And when Obama claimed in Sept that running a national campaign was comparable to governing a state, AP had no interest in calling him "young and inexperienced."

No one is denying that tough times lay ahead for Obama, but it's crummy of AP to tell us *now* that he's in over his head. Furthermore I disagree with your assertion that this is the worst decade in American history.

Why don't you try to picture our current unemployment being double what it is right now, the Dow being down around 2,000, and Ahmadenijad building a massive army while the US doesn't have the most capable military in the world - that's comparable to what FDR went through.

Then try to picture gas being 6 bucks a gallon, the tax rate being 70% on some American families, Russia having an empire that covers half of Europe (with nukes), and Iran holding American citizens hostage. That's what Carter went through and what Reagan had to clean up.

And let's not even bother looking at George Washington's first term or the mess Abe Lincoln got handed.

Don't sit there and act like nuclear war is some new concept, Iraq/Afghanistan are comparable to Vietnam, or a bad economy is the end of the world.

Really now Shawn. You're buying right into the propaganda AP wants you believe. They are consciously lowering the bar for Obama.

I'm a typical white person.

I think...

'ole Liz, here, is angling for the soon-to-be-available White House Chief of Staff position...

BKeyser, great

BKeyser, great prediction!

Let's see. I believe the founders only wanted certain folks voting because they felt KNOWLEDGE was an important asset to have when casting that vote. So now some soon to be out-of-work AP reporter is apologizing for poor BHO because he is in over his head? DUH. Those with a knowledge of history knew who not to vote for and yet some phony, half-black marxist will take over the mess his party created. Poor us!

The fake Obama media need to shut their pieholes!

Get used to it

This is the meme for the next 4-8 years: Obama has it harder than any President in the history of America. If the White House lawn becomes infested with crabgrass, it will be because of global warming, greenhouse gases, or pollution levels higher than "at any time in our history." No mere mortal can be expected to succeed in such a dire environment.

(Yeah, we know, we told you he was more than a mere mortal, but c'mon, you didn't really believe that, did you? Like the "experience" thing. Yeah, we said it didn't matter, but, are you nuts? I mean, the most powerful office in the world, and you really didn't think experience was necessary? Cut the guy some slack, willya? I mean, you voted for him, so really, it's more your fault than it is his!)

About Blago's Woes, there's been an investigation going on him for something like 3 years. So, there's a lot more going on than just selling Obama's Senate seat. This has the potential to have tentacles throughout Illinois politics, with special emphasis on the Chicago Machine. Tony Rezko is back in the spotlight, for one thing. Remember him? Obama's neighbor? And there have been questions raised about documents relating to a home that Tony was involved in. The home the Obamas ended up buying, it so happens. So, the whole Blago thing is far from over. Gee, wonder if he'll cut a deal? He might be able to hand over "that mother****er."

Finally, as WTH points out, there's always this:

"Politically, with things so bad, Obama can claim any change for the better as a success. If the economic and security situation deteriorates further, he can rightly say he inherited a mess."

So it's a win-win for The One. As long as his buddies in the press decide to paint it that way, of course.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

IJ....Interesting

IJ....Interesting developments, for sure.

Trying to check my current understanding of Chicago politics, which you certainly know more about than I.

This is what I think I see: there are two main factions within the D party in Illinois/Chicago: 1. The Daly Machine, and 2. The Blag machine. (probably others also, I suppose) Obama was planted and grown in the Daly camp. When Daly says to Obama "JUMP", Obama says, "How high, sir?" Still the case today. (look at how many Daly former chiefs of staff and campaign managers are in Obama's administration already).

Both political machines know where all the bodies are buried. Creates a big problem for both sides.

Daly and Blag political machines at each other's throat for years, competing for graft money, rampant nepotism in each camp, competing for federal funds, paying off the Mob, Unions, contractors, etc.

Most local Chicago media in the tank for Daly, and to some extent Blad.
But all know that the tentacles from the Blad story are reaching for
Obama's political neck.

Now comes Blad, basically Obama's political enemy, asking for a big favor through Emanuel. Fitzgerald blows the whistle on a long investigation into Blad's capers (the timing is extremely interesting). Daly machine fears the Blad criminal complaints will spill over into their turf revealing their own corruption. If that happens, Obama's real ties, via Daly, to crooked money and organizations are revealed. Nasty headlines ensue. Obama administration collapses.

Am I reading this correctly so far?

 

How about, oh...

a guy named "Bush"? I seem to recall something about inheriting a recession and in less than nine months, suffering a large-scale attack on our soil for the first time in 60 years. Maybe the article focuses only on economic hardship, but prior to this fall, when was the last time the Dow took a huge hit, unemployment skyrocketed, and talk of global economic meltdown was on every newscast? September, 2001, maybe?

Yahoo news disses O

A story about the challenges facing the POTUStobe referred to  O as "young and inexperienced!" Now they admit it! Would they could have been this forthcoming during the campaign.

Read this too but I was

Read this too but I was unable comment, relegating myself instead to conclude that all our suspicions were indeed correct regarding Obasm...only now AP and the Yahoos are covering it after the outcome has been decided.  Yes, all excuses are firmly in place now....just waiting for the incoming boob-in-chief to screw things up.

President-elect Barack

President-elect Barack Obama, relatively young and inexperienced

The guy is almost FORTY EIGHT YEARS OLD. He is NOT young. Relatively, or any way you cut it.

Good grief, if he was in the UAW he'd be retiring in SEVEN years.

And judging by the Bush before and after pics, in about two years he's going to look like guy on the Uncle Ben's packs of rice. 

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

Anything less than walking on water is unaccepatable

The way Obama sold himself along with his media accolytes, he better be the second coming of Jesus, or else he will be a major failure.

the challenges he faces

are only because he promised to fix everything.  Oddly enough one of the more complete lists I found was at the Huffington Post.  I kept a bullet list of his Agenda from his website but this is pretty good.

Anyone with half a brain has to know that unless he really is the One, there is no way he is going to achieve even a third of this.

However, his priorities are what scare me. This isn't the "Change" we need.

"part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of [government enforced] responsibility" - B. Obama

Racism

The racism from the left is disgusting.

I believe one could make a

I believe one could make a pretty good case that Ronald Reagan inherited just as many problems as Obama is in this instant.  The collective memory of this nation is poor to say the least.  Reagan had an ongoing hostage crisis in Iran, with potential implications that extended well beyond that situation.  He inherited an economy that was far worse than what our current situation is, with little hope for the future.  The term "stagflation" was coined during this time for crying out loud!  The energy situation was equally as bad, with long gas lines and the threat of the world running out of affordable energy sources (sound familiar?).  The country's psyche back then was certainly no better than it is now and it may have been worse.  On top of that, we had a very real cold war going on with the U.S.S.R., one which the U.S. was arguably losing with ramifications that were scary to say the least.  Bomb shelters were maintained in public buildings, even schools, and in many private residences to escape the "big one," which was a very real and scary threat.  Does anyone really believe the present day situation is any worse?

  Obama said he could fix

  Obama said he could fix everything, so hold him accountable. The sooner he fails the sooner America will realize he is nothing more than a socialist buffoon, economic illiterate and an evironmental moron.

Indeed, Obama exudes

Indeed, Obama exudes confidence.

I guess I'm biased, but I would call it 'arrogance', not 'confidence'.

The Communists talked about President Bush's 'arrogance'.  Again, biased here, but I perceived it more as steadfastness, and possibly stubborness.  But, that's a quality that made Winston Churchill a great man.

The FDR thing.  Nobody back then knew how to handle such a thing.  There had been panics before, but not like the Great Depression.  Raising taxes and being worried about balancing the budget was the worst thing that Hoover and Congress did.  It begs the question:  "How would FDR's New Deal have worked if World War II had never happened with all the employment needed for armin/supplying the U.S. and her allies?"

There were some good things, I think, in the New Deal.  The TVA-it is not Socialism for Washington to improve and maintain national infrastructure nor interstate commerce (like the Interstate System under Eisenhower).  The CCC-paying people who are out of work is preferable to simply paying unemployment/welfare and gives people the chance to retain their dignity by not receiving 'charity'. 

However-We have the ability to look back and see what worked and what didn't.  Most of FDR's programs didn't work.  So why repeat them?  Funny how the Communists are quick to point out the 'trickle down' failures of Capitalism, but always expect the big corporations and the wealthy to 'trickle down' their wealth through taxation!

Listen to a lot of these economists.  Incredible.  They have the attitude that, "Well, this time Socialism will work...you'll see!"  I saw some of these guys on a History Channel documentary which compared the Great Depression to the current recession-I swear economists are taught Socialism instead of Capitalism in these major universities..

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

There was nothing good about the New Deal

People knew how to handle these things (Laissez-faire was known) in the 1930s but Hoover was a Progressive who intervened in the economy, FDR was worse.

FDR's New Deal never worked, it was a complete and utter disaster (which is why the depression lasted so long). There was nothing good about the New Deal, the CCC and TVA were both Socialist! The government created them. Government make-work jobs are just as bad as welfare and unemployment because they give false hope and rob the private sector of capital to create real jobs.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate (UCLA)
How FDR Made the Depression Worse (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People (Jim Powell, Historian)
Should We Try Another New Deal? (Jim Powell, Historian)
Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal (Jim Powell, Historian)
Why Did FDR's New Deal Harm Blacks? (Jim Powell, Historian)
The New Deal Debunked (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
The New Deal Debunked (again) (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Three Myths of the Great Depression (Burton W. Folsom, Ph.D. Professor of History)
The Truth about FDR (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. History)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

Powell's book titled "FDR's

Powell's book titled "FDR's Folly" is a great read. Him I trust as a source. Thomas Di Lorenzo, however, I would never EVER use as a source. He is one of the worst excuses for an historian that I've ever seen.

DiLorenzo is right on the New Deal

Whether you agree with his other works he is right on about the New Deal.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

I do agree with his basic

I do agree with his basic premise, of course. But his work is suspect enough that I would never use him for a source.