What the Hell is Barack Obama's Presidency For?

I expected almost nothing from the Obama presidency.  I have not been disappointed at all.  I am far more disappointed that the American press chose to give this man a complete pass during his rise to the presidency.  Riding in a bubble is no test and smacks of a complete con job.

Worse, this man’s route through the education system was that of a serious lightweight.  Great minds are challenged and seek challenge.  You do the tough stuff.  We have seen scant evidence of any of that.  Recall Churchill, Kennedy and Reagan wrote and gave their own speeches.  Some of their work is as fine as any in our language.  None of that here.  In fact there is creditable claims that his political writings per se that he claimed authorship of were well ghost written by a certain accomplished friend.

Then he was a community organizer whatever all that entails.  It most certainly never included meeting a payroll.  He appears to have shied away from getting his hands dirty in commerce.

A president must make hard decisions often and fast.  We get the reverse here.

This first item is written by an ally.

What the Hell is Barack Obama's Presidency For?

His ascent to power had meaning, but now his interventions are too rare and too piecemeal to constitute a narrative

by Gary Younge

Published on Monday, February 24, 2014 by The Guardian

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/24

‘There’s precious little that Obama’s done that any of his primary opponents would not have done.’ (Photograph: TJ Kirkpatrick/Corbis)A few days after John F Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson sat in his kitchen with his key advisers working his first speech to Congress. It was the evening of Kennedy's funeral – Johnson was now president. The nation was still in grief and Johnson, writes Robert Caro in The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Passage of Power, was not yet able to move into the White House because Kennedy's effects were still there.

He had been a hapless vice-president; now he had to both personify and project the transition from bereavement to business as usual. In the midst of the cold war, with Vietnam brewing, the Kennedy administration had been trying to get civil rights legislation and tax cuts through Congress. There was plenty of business to attend to. Johnson's advisers were keen that he introduced himself to the nation as a president who could get things done.

"If there was a plot, he's lost it. If there was a point, few can remember it. If he had a big idea, he shrank it. If there's a moral compass powerful enough to guide such contradictions to more consistent waters, it is in urgent need of being reset."

For that reason, writes Caro, they implored him not to push for civil rights in this first speech, since it had no chance of passing. "The presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn't to expend it on this," said "one of the wise, practical people around the table". Johnson, who sat in silence at the table as his aides debated, interjected: "Well, what the hell's the presidency for."

"First," he told Congress a few days later, "no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honour President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long." Over the next five years he would go on to sign the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, launch the war on poverty and introduce Medicaid (medical assistance for low-income families) and Medicare (for seniors). That's what his presidency was for.

Barack Obama has now been in power for longer than Johnson was, and the question remains: "What the hell's his presidency for?" His second term has been characterised by a profound sense of drift in principle and policy. While posing as the ally of the immigrant he is deporting people at a faster clip than any of his predecessors; while claiming to be a supporter of labour he's championing trade deals that will undercut American jobs and wages. In December, even as he pursued one whistleblower, Edward Snowden and kept another, Chelsea Manning, incarcerated, he told the crowd at Nelson Mandela's funeral: "There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba's struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people."

If there was a plot, he's lost it. If there was a point, few can remember it. If he had a big idea, he shrank it. If there's a moral compass powerful enough to guide such contradictions to more consistent waters, it is in urgent need of being reset.

Given the barriers to democratic engagement and progressive change in America – gerrymandering, big money and Senate vetoes – we should always be wary of expecting too much from a system designed to deliver precious little to the poor. We should also challenge the illusion that any individual can single-handedly produce progressive change in the absence of a mass movement that can both drive and sustain it.

Nonetheless, it was Obama who set himself the task of becoming a transformational political figure in the mould of Ronald Reagan or JFK. "I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now where people think that things, the way they are going, just aren't working," he said. It was he who donned the mantles of "hope" and "change".

It was obvious what his election was for. First, preventing the alternative: presidential candidates in the grip of a deeply dysfunctional and reactionary party. His arrival marked a respite from eight years of international isolation, military excess and economic collapse. He stood against fear, exclusion and greed – and won. Second, it helped cohere and mobilise a new progressive coalition that is transforming the electoral landscape. Finally, it proved that despite the country's recent history Americans could elect a black man to its highest office.

So his ascent to power had meaning. It's his presence in power that lacks purpose. The gap between rich and poor and black and white has grown while he's been in the White House, the prospects for immigration reform remain remote, bankers made away with the loot, and Guantánamo's still open. It's true there's a limit to what a president can do about much of this and that Republican intransigence has not helped. But that makes the original question more salient not less: if he can't reunite a divided political culture, which was one of his key pledges, and his powers are that limited, then what is the point of his presidency?

This should not deny his achievements. He scaled down one major war, is winding down another, and helped save the US car industry. If he's on the hook for growing inequality, then he can take credit for the deficit shrinking and unemployment falling. But together, this amounts to an extended period of triage before sending the patient back out into the world without any plan for long-term recovery. The underlying impulses, policies, priorities and structures that made the wars and economic collapse possible are still in place.

Finally, there's healthcare reform. The brouhaha over its botched rollout will scarcely be remembered a few years hence. But with roughly 31 million people set to remain uninsured and little changing for many, its undeniable benefits are not likely to be remembered as transformational. All in all, there's precious little that Obama has done that any of his primary opponents would not have done.

Occasionally, he either gives a lead – like after the shootings at Newtown when he advocated for gun control – or follows one, as in his support for gay marriage or preventing the deportation of young undocumented immigrants, which helps to set a tone or establish a moral marker. But these interventions are too rare, and their remedies too piecemeal, to constitute a narrative.

"If you're going to be president, then I guess you obviously want to be in the history books," said Susan Aylward, a frustrated Obama supporter in Akron, Ohio, shortly before the last election. "So what does he want to be in the history books for? I don't quite know the answer to that yet." Sadly, it seems, neither does he.

Explaining Why Obama's Poll Numbers are Close to Zero Among White Voters

Wayne Allyn Root | Mar 12, 2014

http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2014/03/12/explaining-why-obamas-poll-numbers-are-close-to-zero-among-white-voters-n1807364/page/full

Have you seen Obama’s poll numbers? They are among the lowest in history. As of last week, Obama’s approval rating is at 38%. That’s just barely above Richard Nixon. But that's not the big story here.

Keep in mind that Obama has the support of about 35% to 40% of the population that will NEVER abandon him, no matter what he does, no matter how bad the jobs numbers look, no matter how low the economy goes, no matter how much scandal and corruption is exposed, no matter how strong the facts are against him. Nothing will ever change their minds. These are the “low information voters” of the Democratic Party.

In many cases they love Obama because of the color of his skin- and nothing else. They will never abandon a black President.

Even though black unemployment is at record levels. Even though black youth unemployment is at record levels. Even though black poverty is at record levels.

Even though Obama's exact policies have been in place for over 50 years in Detroit, a majority black city run by black Democrat politicians…and the black population has been devastated, destroyed, and discarded. Left for dead in an abandoned, bankrupt city with very few street lights operating and the police leaving residents in many areas to fend for themselves.

So just think about those poll numbers for a moment. Let those numbers sink in. If 35% to 40% of the population would support a Democrat for President if he ran from a prison cell…if 35% to 40% would support Obama no matter what he does, no matter how far America sinks under his leadership, even if they have no jobs and their own lives are in total misery...how could Obama’s approval rating be at only 38%?

That means that among the rest of America, outside of loyal, lifelong, Kool-Aid drinking Democrats, Obama's ratings are nil. Among voters who don't identify as Democrat, he is the lowest-rated President in history. No numbers like this have ever been recorded, if you filter out the Kool Aid drinking low information and partisan voters.

Obama's approval among “the Heartland of America” (middle class Americans) is lower than Nixon. Lower than W. Lower than Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam war. Lower than Jimmy Carter at the height of the Iranian hostage crisis, with the added burden of an economy in misery and malaise.

I’m betting that outside of lifelong Democrats and welfare recipients (I know, I repeat myself), Obama's ratings are in the unimaginable range of single digits.

I'm betting that outside of food stamp recipients, Obama's ratings are in the single digits.

Among the white middle class, I’m betting Obama’s ratings are in the single digits.Or lower.

Keep in mind many of the white middle class originally voted for Obama. He could not have been elected without white support.

Among those that actually own small businesses, pay most of the taxes and create most of the jobs, I'm betting Obama's ratings are in the vicinity of ZERO.

Actually if you take the white middle class and subtract out a few Ivy League intellectuals, Hollywood liberals, and pathetic Upper West Side of Manhattan Democratic zombies, there are few Obama supporters left to be found anywhere in America.

Remember that about 47% of Americans get entitlement checks from government. Obama is PAYING for their support and he still only has 38% approval. You know you're unpopular when even bribes don't work anymore!

This man has managed to pull off something remarkable and historical- he has alienated almost every single American who actually works for a living and pays taxes- outside of Chicago, Manhattan, Hollywood and Detroit. He has virtually zero support among the 53% who aren't getting a check from government. You can't find another instance of that in the history of American politics.

Obama is amazing!

I do want to answer my critics whose only response will be…"all of these white voters who don't support Obama are racists. It's all about race."

First of all, the very definition of racism is voting for a black candidate because...he's black. That's racism. The fact that 92% of black voters voted for Obama and 96% of black women voted for Obama is nothing but voting based on race.

As far as white voters abandoning Obama in droves, I've yet to meet one white voter who bases it on the color of Obama's skin. We all base it on the color of his policies. The color of his policies is red- as in communist red. We hate his policies, not the man and not the color of his skin.

We hate the record-setting $12 trillion in debt he'll have piled up by the time his second term is finished- because Obama has ruined the future of America with that debt. And he's ruined our children's future quality of life with that debt.

We hate Obama's big tax increases for the middle class and small business...and the fact that those tax increases haven't helped the economy, or created new jobs because the money was handed to Obama's voters and donors- for more entitlements, more welfare, more food stamps, bailouts, stimulus and wasted failing green energy "investments."

We hate the fact that Obama has killed millions of jobs. We hate the fact that the economy is in ruins under his leadership- except for Wall Street. Of course Wall Street goes up because Obama has directed the Fed to print trillions in fake dollars to make his biggest donors richer than they ever imagined.

We hate the fact that Obama ruined the finest healthcare system in the world, that about 80% of Americans were happy with in the first place. We hate the fact that he is a liar and fraud, who promised "if you like your health insurance, you can keep it." Now we either don't have insurance, or our prices have been raised through the roof. He has damaged our lives beyond belief. The color of his skin has nothing to do with it. But the facts have everything to do with it.

Over the years I hated the policies of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. They were both white. So did that mean I hated whites? Today I hate the policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Does that mean I hate Italians and Mormons? I hate the policies of Hillary Clinton. Does that mean I hate women? I hate the policies of Congresswoman Debbie Shultz Wasserman and Senator Chuck Schumer. Does that mean I hate Jews? Well guess what? I'm Jewish. There goes that argument.

And I hate the policies of Joe Biden. Does that mean I hate idiots? I'm just kidding…kind of.

The point is in every case, it's the politics and policies that we hate. Not the person, or the race. So the argument is just plain misleading, fraudulent and stupid.

It all comes down to common sense. White middle class Americans are suffering because of the policies of a incompetent, fraudulent, lying Marxist. And we're not in delusion and denial, simply because we're not blinded by the color of his skin. The fact is we don't care about the color of his skin. So we can see the plain truth.

That's why Obama's poll numbers are amazing. That's why among Americans who are NOT Kool Aid drinkers blinded by the color of his skin, Obama's poll numbers are the lowest in history.