Skip to comments.Barack Obama is a generic Democratic president
Posted on 07/03/2014 10:15:13 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Quinnipiac poll getting buzz this week may be worthless, but the general topic of evaluating Barack Obama is another opportunity to make an important point: almost everything about Obama's presidency can be explained by saying hes a Democratic president. Hes an interesting man, but as president hes become about as generic as possible.
By saying hes a generic Democratic president, Im not arguing that hes performed perfectly; Im saying that his performance is neither significantly above or below par.
Let's hear it, Obama critics or Obama supporters. Where have his particular skills, preferences or personality produced anything that sets him apart from the generic Democratic president?
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
You know they are desperate when the damage control is reduced to “He’s not any worse than any other democrat”
If O’s performance is representative of a “generic” democrat president, then that just goes to show how bad democrat presidents are on average.
The guy lost me at: He’s an interesting man.
What in the Hell is in the water in Chicago? This freaking moron posing as the President of the United States makes Jimmy Carter look competent!
I’d say that he’s actually the “ideal Democrat” in the sense that he promotes the party line to a “T” and gets the results that reality has in store for such idiocy.
What makes him worse than his Democrat predecessors is his inability or unwillingness to let ideology go to get better results. In large part because he doesn’t want better results.
I disagree. Obama basically said “to hell with” even his own party to push for his agenda. When he took office, the Dems owned both the Senate and the House which, under his watch, went right back to the bumbling go-along-to-get-along GOP.
He exploited his race to make himself above criticism but there was no hiding the disaster of his policies’ effect on our economy and our reputation around the world.
I hope (though not sure who notices) that by actually implementing long-held Democrat positions, Obama proved their folly just as Bill Clinton demonstrated the folly of feminist groups who stuck with him during every personal assault against women.
Maybe some Democrats are noticing. Maybe some GOP-e are noticing too and finding the courage not to just go-along with all of Obama’s extremism and lawlessness.
“He’s a generic Marxist.”
Unfortunately, in America today, a generic Democrat and a generic Marxist is pretty much the same thing.
Obama is a lying, Marxist, phony. End of sentence. Any other description of him is whitewash.
Kinda takes it out of the “generic” category.
Apparently not interesting enough for the MSM to discover any facts in his background.
Can anyone point to one good achievement that is his?
These days, that’s synonymous with “generic democrat”, though, isn’t it?
Hmmm...the MSM has a creative new approach to distance “O” from his disastrous Presidencies.
Not going to fly...BUT “O” really DOES have a ‘Brand X’ intellect. :)
I’m sure his golf score is lower than it was 6 years ago...
So a Marxist who has played more golf than any president ever, presided over the worst recovery since WWII, made unprecedented use of executive orders, attacked our rights, and let down our allies and supported our enemies is a “generic Democrat president”?
OK, if you say so. It’s like I always say: Friends don’t let friends vote for Democrats.
Wow, talk about damned with faint praise.
FDR loved America. Truman was a patriot. JFK believed in American exceptionalism. LBJ’s lack of concern for our troops in Vietnam was pretty disgusting, but he liked America. Jimmy Carter was a terrible and antisemitic president, but he didn’t hate our country and actually liked Christians. Bill Clinton was the most revolting sleaze ever to stain our White House, but he more or less liked our country and wasn’t terrible when it came to job performance.
Obama hates Jews (like Jimmy Carter), hates America (unlike anyone who ever occupied our White House), and is shockingly inept in all respects except for playing the race card and keeping the media in line.
Yep...he’s a generic DemonRAT Pres. They ALL SUCK!
Marxist - and the recent polls showing his favorability ratings going down even among his biggest supporters show he is not a generic Democrat. Can only pray more Democrats wake up.
Carter was simply a lousy politician only elected in the backlash against Watergate and the pardoning of Nixon. He was ineffective and made America weak to the point it woke up and elected Reagan. Clinton was a wrong on most things but a good politician, and recognized when his policies were too far out of touch thus he gave up the unattainable and went back to the middle in some areas - welfare and NAFTA. Bad as they were, they did not overtly try to destroy this country.
Name a foreign policy success.
Evidently the author hasn’t noticed Obama’s complete inability to work with others. He doesn’t even form liaisons within his own party, much less with any Republicans. He’s got a pen & a phone...and the golf course. He reportedly engages in marathon TV sessions, when it doesn’t interfere with late night parties. Vacations & AF1 joyriding about round it out.
The point being, he resorts to executive orders because they alone require no interaction with congress. There’s never been a POTUS so adverse to working with anybody else. His own party says he doesn’t engage with them. As long as he’s got Valerie Jerrett, he must feel congress is unnecessary. Who knows. Anyway, his isolatedness is certainly unique. It deserves more attention. It’s part and parcel with his larger issue of Malignant Narcissism.
He’s generic dog squeeze. The kind you step in and then can never get rid of the damn smell.
The only thing that might be generic about the kenyan/indonesian commie usurper is that he is a POS!
Thats what the article said, he’s a generic dem.
“is whitewash.” WHITEwash sounds awfully racis to me.
There does seem to be some semantics or sophistry at work in the article, though. If the author is saying that President Obama has performed without any special talents or graces or abilities, then the conclusion would be that he's been below average, not that he's doing pretty well, for, even if we were to accept the author's questionable judgment that Obama hasn't shown any disastrous flaws or failings, don't we expect more political sense and ability than the president has demonstrated?
I will say this, though: sooner or later we were going to have a Northern Democrat in the White House. Sooner or later we were going to elect someone from a big city, somebody whose background was more liberal or left-wing than Bill Clinton's, and someone who could claim to be African American. Such a person might be more qualified than Barack Obama -- almost certainly would be more competent -- but wouldn't differ terribly much on the issues. A quarter or a third or half the voters are in that camp and sooner or later one of them would make it to the top.
When seeing and smelling dog poo, you can always recognize it for what it is. The same goes with presidents. Besides Obama, the worst presidents during my adult lifetime have been: Carter (worst), LBJ, and Nixon. There is really no comparison of these low performers and Obama. He is in a category all his own. Abysmal isn’t even close. Perhaps if we had elected Goering during WWII?
“The guy lost me at: Hes an interesting man.”
Well, he is interesting although not much of a man in my view. Interesting in the same way that the spitting Cobra is an interesting snake. A fourteen foot alligator is an interesting reptile. The Black Widow is an interesting Arachnid etc.
From the article, “Many liberal Democrats fault Obama for his moderation on financial issues”.
I don’t believe someone actually wrote that, they may as well condemn him for being too short to be president or too fat, either one would seem no more absurd than his moderation on financial issues.