Is the honeymoon over?

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Link
T.J. HOLMES, SUBSTITUTE HOST: Bob, you covered the White House for a long time. You’ve been around, and you were shaking your head there the whole time and wanting to chime in. What is it?

BOB FRANKEN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, let's use the "P" word here. This is propaganda when it comes from the White House: government covering the government. It’s not what you’re supposed to do in the United States of America. But we have an administration, every president gets to the point where he dislikes the press. It’s that simple. And every administration tries to manipulate the press. But this is the most hostile to the media that has been in United States history. Not only do we have this thing where they’re…
HOLMES: Wait, you would go that far?

FRANKEN: I would go that far.

HOLMES: The most hostile in history?

FRANKEN: The most hostile because first of all, we have the situation where they are in fact shutting out the press. And by the way, when they say you can't have every photographer in, they know full-well that there's a thing called a pool, which is to say you have one representative from each of the media that represents all of them and shares the pictures and the sound and all that kind of thing. So that's totally disingenuous, which is a polite word.

But the reason I say most hostile is because of the Justice Department moves that they've made against the press. Obviously they have a contempt for the journalistic process. Those of us who are in journalism, of course, believe that it is vital if you're going to have informed electorate as opposed to one that’s been propagandized.
lots more out there....
link

Nearly 40 news outlets and organizations issued a formal protest and sent a letter to White House press secretary Jay Carney, blasting the administration for not living up to its oft-repeated pledge to be the most transparent in history.
And as an example- I would NEVER had expected a story like this on a CBS site...
Link
A new poll finds that President Barack Obama has been rated the biggest failure as commander in chief since 1900.

A YouGov/Economist survey reveals that 37 percent of Americans believe Obama has been a failure during his time in office, worse than Richard Nixon. Thirty-two percent of Americans believed former President George W. Bush was a failure, followed up by Nixon at 30 percent. Jimmy Carter came in fourth at 22 percent.
 
Last edited:

Renzatic

Suspended
We could throw about pithy quotes and link to various polls and opinion pieces all we want, but that does nothing to actually further an argument.

Explain this to me. Why do you believe Obama has been the worst president in our relatively short history? What has he done to disappoint you? Will he be leaving the country in worse shape than he found it?

I'll say this much, he certainly has been the most bitched about president in history, and easily the largest target of partisan aggression we've yet seen. I mean hell, you can't even take a step on the internet without running into a blog screaming about 'ole Barack Musliming up the country...
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Is the honeymoon over ... after nearly six years?

That was quite a honeymoon.

But to cut to the chase, Obama has been a "failure" in my opinion as well. He hasn't fought hard enough for progressive policies. He's given in far too often to Republicans, and he hasn't adequately communicated his strategies and objectives to the American people.

Yet he's still an improvement over our last president.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I wouldn't say he's a failure exactly, but somewhat of a disappointment. He had one of the most impressive campaigns I've yet seen. Hope! Change! Stuff!

...and what'd we get?

We got a pretty standard democrat president. I give him props for Obamacare and a few other notable bits here and there. But overall? Eh. Alright. Could be better, could be worse.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
We could throw about pithy quotes and link to various polls and opinion pieces all we want, but that does nothing to actually further an argument.

Explain this to me. Why do you believe Obama has been the worst president in our relatively short history? What has he done to disappoint you? Will he be leaving the country in worse shape than he found it?

I'll say this much, he certainly has been the most bitched about president in history, and easily the largest target of partisan aggression we've yet seen. I mean hell, you can't even take a step on the internet without running into a blog screaming about 'ole Barack Musliming up the country...
Agreed.

I see it further like this:

Andrew Jackson removed over 45,000 Natives from their lands, resulting in at least 4000 deaths along the way, in what amounted to ethnic cleansing. George W. Bush sent 5,000 people to their deaths in Iraq, and at least 4,000 people to their deaths in Afghanistan…

And Obama is the worst President, after he tried to fix the hellhole that was the US economy left to him by Bush, get bin Laden where Bush failed (Mission Accomplished?), and pulls our troops out of Iraq, and soon, out of Afghanistan? And Obama is the worst President?

Someone's definition of 'worst' (read: OP) leaves a hell of a lot to be desired, especially based off of talking heads.

BL.
 

tktaylor1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 16, 2010
788
0
Nashville, TN
Is the honeymoon over ... after nearly six years?

That was quite a honeymoon.

But to cut to the chase, Obama has been a "failure" in my opinion as well. He hasn't fought hard enough for progressive policies. He's given in far too often to Republicans, and he hasn't adequately communicated his strategies and objectives to the American people.

Yet he's still an improvement over our last president.
I see this a lot but honestly I have no idea where you get this. Granted I don't follow politics as much as I should but I am asking this solely out of curiosity. I am not trying to argue, I want to gain insight on why people say this. Some specific examples would be nice. I know we have google and whatnot but I really wouldn't know what to search for something like this.

Personally I see Obama just as much of a failure as Bush.
1) Both presidents skyrocketed our debt.
2) Both presidents started wars and continued wars for no absolute reason.
3) Both presidents gave out massive bailouts.
4) Nothing seems to be looking up under both presidents, economically.
5) Obama elected dozens of people that he said he wouldn't that were in office under Bush.
6) Until people in the government can stop being persuaded by big money and wall street, I don't ever seeing us getting turned around. Its just going to be the same ole same ole. Everything is being persuaded by big money lobbyists and wall street. Until someone actually stands up and does their job for the benefit of our country instead of their bank account nothing will change.
 
Last edited:

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Is the honeymoon over - refers to obama treatment by the press. You can find polls that will say he was the best ever-but what I'm referring to is the fact that people are saying that they have been restrictive to the press-they have been saying for awhile now. Even liberal media is saying it-even liberal media is vocally frustrated.
Worst president ever-well most of these polls ask since JFK.
I think he is-stay tuned on the way to a busy day after losing my job on the 30th.
Again, I'm referring to press coverage and the limits there of.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,367
UK
I see this a lot but honestly I have no idea where you get this. Granted I don't follow politics as much as I should but I am asking this solely out of curiosity. I am not trying to argue, I want to gain insight on why people say this. Some specific examples would be nice. I know we have google and whatnot but I really wouldn't know what to search for something like this.

Personally I see Obama just as much of a failure as Bush.
1) Both presidents skyrocketed our debt.
2) Both presidents started wars and continued wars for no absolute reason.
3) Both presidents gave out massive bailouts.
4) Nothing seems to be looking up under both presidents, economically.
5) Obama elected dozens of people that he said he wouldn't that were in office under Bush.
6) Until people in the government can stop being persuaded by big money and wall street, I don't ever seeing us getting turned around. Its just going to be the same ole same ole. Everything is being persuaded by big money lobbyists and wall street. Until someone actually stands up and does their job for the benefit of our country instead of their bank account nothing will change.
a) I don't know which planet you are on where the economy is as bad as it was in January 2009...
b) Which wars has Obama started for no reason?
c) Are you saying that letting Detroit collapse with the loss of millions of jobs would have been better than a bailout? I mean seriously?
d) Obama has done a pretty good job of shrinking the deficit since January 2009 as well.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Anyone wanting to talk up obama and decreasing debt is just barking up the wrong tree. The only debt he has decreased is his own from a previous year.
CBS News March 2012
(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
Washington Times Oct 2013
When Mr. Obama became president in January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This week, it hit $16.7 trillion — an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, total federal debt rose 38 percent. Under President Clinton, it rose 32 percent.
Apart from him being a miserable failure or savior-I find the press is starting to be less enamored and that to me is significant.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,367
UK
Anyone wanting to talk up obama and decreasing debt is just barking up the wrong tree. The only debt he has decreased is his own from a previous year.
CBS News March 2012

Washington Times Oct 2013


Apart from him being a miserable failure or savior-I find the press is starting to be less enamored and that to me is significant.
I didn't use the word debt I was talking about the deficit - i.e the rate at which the debt is increasing. I don't doubt that the debt has gone up significantly under Obama.
 

Bug-Creator

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2011
549
2,129
Germany
George W. Bush sent 5,000 people to their deaths in Iraq, and at least 4,000 people to their deaths in Afghanistan…
I'd say your missing atleast 2 zeros on each of those number !

Unless you wanted to say he sent 4000+5000 US soldiers to their deaths.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
So if Obama is a miserable failure how do we rank Bush?
Bush isn't the President-Bush doesn't sign legislation or make executive orders-OBAMA DOES and has since Jan 2009.

Again you're focused on the wrong part here-failure or SAVIOR! His performance isn't the point in this thread!

MY POINT-HAVE YOU NOTICED, DO YOU THINK, HAVE YOU SEEN OR READ, A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY MAIN STREAM MEDIA IS REPORTING ON OBAMA?

My response is - YES- as evidenced in my links.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
I see this a lot but honestly I have no idea where you get this. Granted I don't follow politics as much as I should but I am asking this solely out of curiosity. I am not trying to argue, I want to gain insight on why people say this. Some specific examples would be nice. I know we have google and whatnot but I really wouldn't know what to search for something like this.
First and foremost it's my gut reaction to six years of the man not living up to the expectations of his 2008 campaign. You know what it feels like to have someone fight for your causes, and I haven't had that feeling as often as I would like or have expected. And that has been a big disappointment or me.

This is off the top of my head, but a partial list includes ...

  • Obama had an opportunity to change the way the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations were talked about framed in order to hasten a withdrawal, something liberals like myself expected. Instead, he adopted the same language of the Bush Administration ("listen to the generals on the ground"), escalated the war (The Surge) and delayed ending the conflicts.

  • Obama extended the Bush Tax cuts for two years.
    The package, brokered by Obama and Republican leaders in the wake of the November elections, angered many Democrats, who have long argued that the Bush tax cuts were skewed to benefit the wealthy. — Washington Post
  • No Public Option in Obamacare

I have to get to work and don't have more time to devote to this, but these items are the tip of the iceberg of the compromises [or moves] Obama has made that disappointed me left me longing for a president who'd fight harder for progressive policies.

This Wall Street Journal article from 2009 also brings up a few more points ...

Liberals Fret Over Obama's Compromises

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's decision to maintain Bush-era military commissions is the latest in a series of compromises and delays that allies on the left see as a disappointing shift away from campaign pledges.

On everything from national security to climate change to immigration, liberal groups are saying the president's recent actions contradict his soothing ability to convince them that he will move dramatically on their issues. It follows a first 100 days in which Mr. Obama largely avoided any compromises on pressing his economic agenda.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said over the weekend that liberal critics were overplaying the extent to which Mr. Obama had changed his views on handling suspected terrorists. He said any compromises on other policies serve the broader purpose of keeping the big priorities moving forward.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124260169419828351
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,367
UK
Bush isn't the President-Bush doesn't sign legislation or make executive orders-OBAMA DOES and has since Jan 2009.

Again you're focused on the wrong part here-failure or SAVIOR! His performance isn't the point in this thread!

MY POINT-HAVE YOU NOTICED, DO YOU THINK, HAVE YOU SEEN OR READ, A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY MAIN STREAM MEDIA IS REPORTING ON OBAMA?

My response is - YES- as evidenced in my links.
Who thought Obama was a "saviour" since maybe March 2009?
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
MY POINT-HAVE YOU NOTICED, DO YOU THINK, HAVE YOU SEEN OR READ, A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY MAIN STREAM MEDIA IS REPORTING ON OBAMA?

My response is - YES- as evidenced in my links.
Yes, I've noticed how the media is treating him, although I have perhaps a slightly different view of it.

In the beginning (e.g., 2009-2012), the media were quite enamored with Obama, I think partly because of his race and partly because of his rhetoric. They brushed aside (and still do) his lack of experience in essentially every area that a president needs experience. And they were giving him the benefit of the doubt on many decisions and policies. In short, they were helping him (or at least not hurting him).

Fast forward to now. Now, we've got many issues that are too big for the press to ignore. The Bengazhi attacks, Obamacare rollout disaster, people having their health insurance policies cancelled, accusations of lying to the American people about being able to keep their health plans, crummy deal with Iran on nuclear technology, and on and on. Sadly, many of these problems are of the Administration's own making. I think the press is finally saying, "Hey wait a minute, what about all this other stuff...." Add to this that the administration clams up on these questions, and it only makes for more questions from the press.

I think the accusations of lying were a turning point, and are particularly troublesome because its clear the president's statements about keeping your health plan were simply not true given all the people who are receiving cancellation notices. The press are simply starting to challenge the President on this, and how can they not?
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
"has the media started to portray Obama differently"

No, not really. I mean, for the first... 2-3 years, they were batting for him. Some people at MSNBC still are. But mostly, they quickly went back to the "neutral" perspective where one side says X, the other says Y, and they declare it even. :|
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,432
8,605
Let's see how much of a faulire Obama is when America elects another Democrat as president.
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
stubeeef said:
Obviously they have a contempt for the journalistic process. Those of us who are in journalism, of course, believe that it is vital if you're going to have informed electorate as opposed to one that’s been propagandized.

That's rich.

You know who else has contempt for the journalistic process? Modern journalists. There's no ethics involved anymore. No fact-checking. No confirmation of stories before they run them. Today's media made their own bed when they tossed journalistic ethics out the window in favor of reporting gossip and tweets.

Furthermore, it's hilarious to hear journalists complaining about propagandizing when many of the media outlets they work for have no problem sensationalizing news stories to fit their political viewpoints.


They brushed aside (and still do) his lack of experience in essentially every area that a president needs experience.
People toss this out all the time and it's laughable. Nobody has the experience needed to be President except former Presidents. There's no other job remotely like it that could possibly prepare you for being President of one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

Fast forward to now. Now, we've got many issues that are too big for the press to ignore. The Bengazhi attacks, Obamacare rollout disaster, people having their health insurance policies cancelled, accusations of lying to the American people about being able to keep their health plans, crummy deal with Iran on nuclear technology, and on and on.
Whine whine whine. Nobody's perfect. Love how the right always focuses on all the failures and ignores all the accomplishments. Typical.

Republicans conveniently like to ignore that the individual mandate for private healthcare insurance was originally their idea. But now that the black guy implemented it, they're against it.

It's also pretty rich when Republicans are perfectly fine with millions of Americans being without any means to get healthcare, but now that we pass a law that makes it possible for all these millions to get healthcare, and a small amount of people have to change their plans because they don't meet these new minimum standards, it's an "outrage" that these people might not have healthcare! Where was the outrage before for all the millions who weren't able to get coverage?

Instead, there's just a bunch of fake outrage over a website that had some technical hiccups at launch. Like it's the first website to ever have bugs when it's rolled out to millions of users. Soon, the website will be fixed, and everything will be working. We're already seeing this work in states like California, New York, and Kentucky where they've implemented state-level exchanges.

I still have yet to hear a single Republican politician offer a real solution for the healthcare problem. All they do is bitch and whine about repealing "Obamacare" without saying what they would do to fix it. Repeal it, and then what? Go back to the old, broken system where our healthcare costs were skyrocketing higher than every country except Liberia and Sierra Leone, where millions can't get healthcare and the ones with insurance end up paying for their ER visits when they get sick? The ACA isn't perfect, but it's better than what we had, and until we come up with a BETTER solution, there's no point in going backwards. The growth in healthcare costs is actually slowing down now.
 
Last edited: