Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Gotta jump in here -- if you were to ask an average citizen of the United States the following question:

"What was John F. Kennedy?"

What sort of answers would you get? I'd hazard something like this:

"great leader" "war hero" "martyr" "victim of the CIA" "Democrat" "Champion of civil rights" "President of the US" "Marilyn Monroe's lover" "King of Camelot" etc.

To be honest, I don't think "Catholic" would come into it, I really don't. That doesn't make it unimportant or not a watershed, but I don't think that to the average person it matters that much anymore about Kennedy's religion, though I can certainly see that if another Catholic (or -- gasp! -- Mormon!) were to make a run for President it would rear its head.

 

In college we studied the campaign of 1960 and it was a pretty big issue. But your responses don't really say much about JFK's accomplishments as prez. Only one deals with any a real poltical issue of the JFK administration, which is Civil Rights (of course, bedding the most famous woman icon in America could be considered an accomplishment of sorts, I suppose).

I would have thought of Civil Rights, the Cold War and the Cuban Missile crisis; the space program, The Bay of Pigs, the beginning of the involvent of America in Vietnam and growth of liberalism in govenment, such as the Peace Corp, greater equality (which would have included his background as an Irish-Catholic).

I agree, DMC, it would be in the top 10, regarding JFK.

 

I would argue that neither of you two fellows are "average" Americans -- you are above average in terms of education and political knowledge. As for his accomplishments, that's a different question and yes, all of those things that you mentioned, Chandos, would be in the top 10 (though to be honest, the "average" American would likely only focus on things relating to the assassination.)

And please understand, that's not a slam on Americans. The average Canadian likely doesn't know the year of our country's birth and couldn't identify more than 20% of our former prime ministers.

 

And I consider you above average in terms of education and political knowledge than the average Canadian. But simplly based on Chandos and dmc having above average education and political knowledge you assume you are right and they are wrong? I don't have anything against non-Americans LKD, but it seems ironic that you, who isn't an American, can better define how Americans would classify a former American president than a politically knowledgable and educated American. Wouldn't these traits make them more inclined to realize the differences in how people view JFK? (To be fair, I would feel the same way if dmc or Chandos claimed to know how Candians think about a Canadian leader better than someone like yourself or Splunge.)

 

Ahh, amazing how quickly they forget. Just a little over a year ago, Obama made the following pledge.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php

Thats just hilarious as even the USA Today has listed 21 obama appointees are lobbyists.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-27-lobbyist_N.htm

So we go from "I won't hire lobbyists" to "Ok, we will hire some but they can't work on stuff they lobbied for" to "We have to waive those requirements for them because it's an emergency".
Now just how is that the great "Change" that obama was promising during the election?
Looks like the same old washington two-step to me.

 

Martaug, how many current lobbyists are on Obama's payroll? How many Obama appointees are working with companies with whom they've previously lobbied? For you, an ardent Bush supporter, to be complaining that Obama's policy towards lobbyists is insufficient and hypocritical is really rich. If the policies that Obama has openly and without prevarication set in place are so hypocritical and utterly wrong, what does that say about Bush?

Now, if you've had a reversal and finally see and understand the corruption and cronyism that took place under the Bush administration in its proper light, then I'm truly happy for you. If not, then you may need to do a little work on reconciling your opinions of Bush with your opinions of Obama.

 

Let me help:

He just signed an equal pay bill, ordered Gitmo closed, ordered CIA prisons closed and banned the use of torture. I also noticed today that Iraq is ousting Blackwater from its country. Yes, change has come.

 

And, uh, no former Obama staffer will be legally permitted to lobby the admin. Ever.

 

I'm sorry, but if John Kerry could lose an election to George Bush, he must have been a real knob, and not a fair comparison to Kennedy. But if I remember correctly, didn't Kerry say that he opposed abortion but wouldn't veto legislation removing restrictions on it? Showing a lack of personal convictions is not something a Presidential candidate should do...

So he thinks he's cleaning up the international mess. That's beyond his power. And if little really changes domestically, what is the impact? And wait a minute--you just now got an equal pay law in place? I can remember that being discussed when I was a teenager. I remember an editorial cartoon where they compared occupations of equal value. The bottom showed then PM Brian Mulroney next to a farmer spreading manure...

 

Spoiler

I think John Kerry was hurt by more than his stance on abortion, though it was a wedge issue that his opponents used against him (though how exactly a pro-business, pro-capital punishment stance is "godly" either is beyond me). Plus, nobody I know supports abortions, as in "Let's abort more babies! Come on, people, the doctors are waiting!". What people differ is their stance on abortion rights. Of course, the issue is somewhat obscured in partisan politics

Right now, I think what the Obama administration - and us all - needs more is for everyone to chill out a little and leave them some time to get to their business. I don't think they have changed all that much yet - and "yet" is the key word here. They have been in power for what, a week? Let's give them at least a few months. By the way, when exactly is the Guantanamo prison closing, and what will happen to its occupants?

 

No, Gnarff. He's doing what the president is SUPPOSED to do: Restore the Rule of Law.

I don't know what that comment has to do with anything. But it may demonstrate that you know even less about the election in 2004 than you know about our last election.

What do you mean by "you?" Do you know anything about the law that he just signed, or do "you" need someone to explain the specifics of it?

 

Hey, I was just posting my opinion there! You make me out to be some sort of arrogant dork or something. Just because I don't live there doesn't mean my opinions aren't valid -- believe me, there's a lot of Canadians who know more about the American polity than they do about their own, because most of our TV channels and news services are direct from the US.

But if I came across as overly arrogant or smug I apologize profusely.

But I still think that the average American or Westerner would not list Kennedy's religion in the top ten most notable elements of the man or his presidency. Maybe I can contact a polling company and they can settle this scientifically

 

How so, LKD? I don't think anyone intended that. This thread is becoming even more convoluted than usual. Now we are down to discussing how specific people with a speicific level of education feel about a specific issue of a presidency from 50 years ago. Is it an important feature? I don't know, LKD, since we've had 44 presidents and how many have NOT been Protestants? Is that a coincidence? Rather than being accused of "caring more about someone's religion, more than I care about the issues," I will leave that for you ponder on your own.

But no, LKD, I don't think you are an "arrogant dork." Sorry if you got that impression.

 

I was actually trying to tell Aldeth that I'm not that smug! I don't think he thought I was either, but I like to make sure people know I have a touch of humility (despite the fact that my ex wife doesn't believe that.)

Getting back to the topic, I think that Obama's first few days in the Presidency have been excellent. He's taking immediate steps to cleansing America's soiled name. The whole lobbyist thing is minor, but if any serious breach of ethics is found down the road, he'll pay for it hard core.

 

I'm glad you liked the point made by Professor Grossman. And that it was what you "have been trying to say." Nevertheless, my point in bringing it into the discussion, other than the brilliance of his essay, was that the media and historians may overstate it, doesn't mean that it wasn't important. Nor does that diminish the importance of the event, because of Grossman's observation. I will again repaste the point Dr. Grossman was making about the symbolism of the event:

That is the point that I referenced in my post. I was framing it within the context of its symblolism, which was exactly what Dr. Grossman comments cannot be "overstated:"

That was my response and was my point. I believe that this a "transformational" event - it's of that magnitude. Here is Grossman's:

So what is he sayng? I'll leave it to you to finish the point.

If you like Dr. Grossman's thinking on history and this event, as much as I did, here is more about him:

http://history.uchicago.edu/faculty/grossman.html

http://www.newberry.org/

 

I remember that everywhere I looked, people were ripping on Bush and calling for Kerry to win, but he lost without the drama and controversy of 2000. Kerry lost, not because of his religion, but because he was a poor politician. Isn't Kennedy revered as a great politician? And yes, I'd put banging Marylin Monroe ahead of his religion in what he'll be remembered for...

I meant the US. You have just last week passed a law for something that's been in place in Canada for decades...

---------- Added 0 hours, 10 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

They should have been saying that 40 years ago. When a sniper's bullet failed to silence MLK, who's immortal words still live on over 40 years after his death, society should have got the message that this change was inevitable, and teach the next generation that this IS possible.

So you suggest that things may not really change in the low rent, crime ridden areas where many African Americans live--usually by economic necessity? This speaks to bigger systemic problems, and I don't see those addressed amid this race to pat yourselves on the back over something that's decades overdue...

 

You don't say? Do you care to explain the bill that he just signed into law and how similar, or different, it is to the one in Canada? This time you will have to look it up for yourself. I already have two children I have to help with their homework, and I don't need a third at this point.

I'm sure "everywhere you looked," there were a lot of people in Canada who "voted" for Kerry. Bush was just under 50 percent approval rating in the last half of 2004 here in the US (he was at about the break even mark). Nevertheless, Kerry ran a very confused campaign. And nobody said that Kerry lost because of his "religion," only that it was an issue during the campaign. Kerry's religion and it's effect on his politics were mostly important to Catholics and the pro-life crowd. It was an issue even here on these boards in 2004 and Kerry's religion was argued about by several members on SP.

Really? I would think that you should look to yourselves before you comment on what someone else "needs" to be saying, or doing, for that matter.

I didn't make that comment - Dr. Grossman did. Again, reading comprehension, my friend.

Is this your country, Gnarff?

http://www.ocasi.org/index.php?qid=819&catid=117

 

I liked this column and thought I'd share it with you all.

The heavy emphasis is mine -- I really liked that line. Now I don't agree with the guys statement that the inaugural speech was shallow, but hey, if he makes that criticism it doesn't automatically make him a racist.

 

I thought that line was interesting though.