Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
G.W. is the best President at being a war monger. I can hardly think of one thing he did I liked. I payed attention to politics more during that time because every thing he did I disagreed with and his veiws on thinking god worked through him sickend me. Romney seems almost as scary.
|
Nah. As Govonor Romney was more liberal then Obama is as president.
|
Yes but unless he rapidly backpedals on the positions he took in the Republican "race to be the most insane rightwing fundamentalist nutbug" primary, he'll be a far more conservative president.
|
Remember Rath, this is American politics.
Look at all the rapid backpedalling Obama did from his caopaign promises.
I mean, Bush wasn't better then Obama, but reverse their presidencies and I think you'd find not much changed.
|
Obama hasn't actually backpedaled as much as you make out - a lot of the promises he broke were not out of backpedaling but simply because congress didn't want to pass it. For Romney to become more liberal than Obama would require massive massive shifts.
In the general line of the Bush/Obama presidency (and especially on handling the economic disaster) - they're pretty similar. However in terms of the defining events of their presidencies they're quite different.
Iraq was a bit more disasterous than Libya for example, and Obama hasn't handled a domestic disaster as badly as Bush cocked up Katrina. In the end those will be some of the major things Bush will be remembered for.
|
That's not true at all... Obama did most of his backpedalling in the first two years of his presidency when he had a democratic majority. Ever since the Republican party took over congress he's moved back towards the "left" as he knew none of those policies would pass. If you look at legislative history you'll note that a few hot button issues are only pushed when they know they won't pass.
Gay rights is one of those.
The healthcare law I'd bet would be another. If the Republicans actually thought they could pass a repeal of healthcare, I doubt they would, because it's too much of a political risk.
As for their handling of things... Iraq was more disasterous then Libya, but those were two very different wars. There wasn't a strong unified arm resistance to support in Iraq.
While Bush's handling of Katrina... Obama's handling of the BP oil spill wasn't exactly great either. Although really neither of those are either of their faults.
In general the problem is that FEMA is a giant mess of an orginzation that ends up getting in local groups way in it's need to overly control everything.
Well that and stupid enviromental laws prevented quicker cleanup of the BP oil because it banned the use of most cleaning boats because the cleaning boats would be counted as "polluting" the water by putting in water because the water that would run through it's ships wouldn't be "clean enough". (You know, despite the fact that it'd be cleaner.)
|
Right, and that i suppose is the brilliance of the ACA, because people like the "no denial based on pre-existing conditions" thing, even if they dislike other points, but the mandate is required to make that work without having a single-payer overhaul. So if the Republicans advance on the mandate, it will be easy to cast them as going back to a system that would deny millions with pre-existing conditions healthcare, which they can't get caught doing.
Essentially, the only way forward from this is to move closer to single-payer.
|
Pretty much yeah. Well at the moment anyway. There is the worry that Howard Dean had though, which I believe is that he thinks singlle payer will actually be harder to broker, and if the republcians "wise up" they'd probably end up picking apart a lot of the more liberal apsects to make it look like the Swiss program.
Individual Mandate and the presxiting are here to stay though.
