politicartoons | Oliphant's latest.

Oliphant's latest.

Hmm.
I know we've all thought it before now (Faux's agenda being what it is) but this is the first time that I've seen it as a cartoon. If anyone digs up a previous instance it would be interesting to compare.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Based on his tactics, strategies and achievements in first eight months. You see, from outside of a lefty echo chamber he looks different. For instance, here's how London Telegraph sees (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6210152/President-Barack-Obama-is-beginning-to-look-out-of-his-depth.html) the situation: "The man who has run nothing more demanding than the Harvard Law Review is beginning to look out of his depth in the world's top job. His credibility is seeping away, and it will require concrete achievements rather than more soaring oratory to recover it."

What tactics, strategies, and achievements make him a failure?

If we go by an op-ed written by some guy, the fact that he didn't restore relations with Moscow and Iran in 8 months? "grizzled [unnamed] Democrats" think he's a pushover? "some" talk about how he's like Carter?

I like how he acts like running Harvard Law Review is a walk in the part, let alone the fact that it's the only thing he managed.

The story with health care reform alone is enough to evaluate his competence and become very skeptical about it. And there's much more - say, his approach to Middle Eastern problems.

How does the story about health care reform make him look bad, as opposed to his opponents? Obama's worst quality in the health care debates is trying to make a bipartisan bill as opposed to get all the Democrats on board. That is notably less bad than the opposition, who screams and yells during congressional forums, who tell their constituents that the President will kill their grandparents, who claim that the President wants to secretly help Mexicans, etc.

Opposition may be as bad as hell, I don't care. I'm discussing the point that the President is failing. If he can't handle the bad opposition, he is failing. If he choose a wrong strategy by trying to make a bipartisan bill, he is failing. There are no excuses in this position. No result means failure. If he manage after all to get this reform done an some meaningful form, not as a Baucus draft, which is hated on both sides of the isle, and there will be no political fallout, I will admit I was wrong. If not - sorry, he is a failure.

I don't consider a bill not passing due to fear tactics and a notable portion of the population being more prone to terrifying statements than reasonable logic a failure on the President, but instead a failure on our society itself.

Well, the only way for President to escape failure in this case would be to try and find another society to preside. Good luck with that.

Sadly the panicked masses think that a stronger school program is socialism is disguise.

Let's assume it's true. Even if it is: couldn't convince masses that you are right? Failure. That was your job as the President. No excuses.

(no subject)

mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com - 2009-09-23 15:56 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

chasovschik.livejournal.com - 2009-09-23 16:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com - 2009-09-23 16:02 (UTC) - Expand

Right, the London Telegraph is owned by Lord Conrad Black, very conservative right wing businessman that was just convicted of fraud in Chicago. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and just quoted Fox News instead :-)

Edited 2009-09-23 14:58 (UTC)

that's different that fraud isn't related to tax dollars in any way so it doesn't count.

Tax fraud is Democratic specialty - from Cabinet members to, er, community organizers. Their opponents prefer sex scandals.

Yes Republicans never engage in tax fraud

Democrats can do sex scandals too, but that's not their trademark.

So Republicans don't have a big history of tax fraud?

Democrats provided a biggest sex scandal in United States history, so what? See, it's about the values. Tax fraud does not contradict the core of conservative beliefs, so it doesn't matter. Conservative tax frauds are kind of morally right in the eyes of their voters. (Kind of, I said, don't take it too literally again!) Same goes for Democratic sex scandals - who cares, really? Sex scandal for conservative, though, is a mortal sin, and same the tax fraud is supposed to be for Democrat. Democratic voters, of course, are way more forgiving, but I hope you know what I mean.

For a guy talking about lefty echo chambers, that's amusing.

I prefer to have a complete picture.

Hot arms bro!

you mean the torygraph. its missing half its right leg its so right leaning.

http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/1556495.html?thread=33011215#t33011215

that's not how the London Telegraph sees the situation. That's how a writer for the Economist who wrote that op-ed sees the situation. And it's not that well written an article to begin with.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only