Republicans only: what was so bad about Obama?

[GP270watch]

 It's hilarious to hear people defend the "christian values" of the past that were also used to justify human bondage, lynchings, violent jim crow segregation, the slaughter of millions of innocent poor people all around the world.

 Would Jesus deny somebody Healthacre, or was it written that he healed the sick?

 Would Jesus bomb poor children in Southeast Asia?

 Would Jesus teargas poor people fleeing government incompetence and oppression, or was it not said that his mother fled the tyranny of the ruler who wanted to kill him?

 Conservatives are not Christian by values, they are Christian by identity and constantly reject Christian values to instead embrace greed, violence against others, lack of the most basic compassion, and rigid judgement of others without understanding.

[Fuzzy Bear]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

didnt you say you would voe for sherrod brown some time ago?

I would consider voting for Sherrod Brown.

[Indy Texas]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

But we were, in my lifetime, a Christian-IZED nation.  A nation where the Christian influence of our Founding Fathers wes taught in schools and celebrated.  Where the Church, and the idea of God were held by people with a degree of reverance, even if they were not religious.  Where the Ten Commandments were the standard for public morailty, even among unbelievers.  Where, despite differences, when American prayed, they were, for the most part, praying to the same God.

Why it surprises people that we, as a nation, have experienced more disunity as we become less Christianized is a mystery to me.  That we, as a people, prayed to the same God was a unifying force.  Those days are gone, and they are not likely to come back, short of a miracle of God, Himself.  But let's not kid ourselves; the secularism today that is a secularism steeped in open hostility to the idea of a God that is, indeed, an Authority Figure, has not always been the dominant moral force in our society.  I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't.

The Big Bad Scary Brown Muslims pray to the same God you do and you hate them anyway.

A bunch of extremely devout Christians from Central America want to move here and you don't want them here because they aren't white.

Just admit that it was never about Christianity with your type - it was always about race.

[GMantis]

His foreign policy was largely dictated by a personal animus against Netanyahu and nearly caused massive long-term problems for US security in the region.

What else is different in the alternate universe you live in, apart from Obama not backing Israel to the hilt for nearly 99% of his term?

[Landslide Lyndon]

His foreign policy was largely dictated by a personal animus against Netanyahu and nearly caused massive long-term problems for US security in the region.

What else is different in the alternate universe you live in, apart from Obama not backing Israel to the hilt for nearly 99% of his term?

In the eyes of Zionists, anyone who thinks that Palestinians must be treated as human beings is considered an anti-semite.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

His foreign policy was largely dictated by a personal animus against Netanyahu and nearly caused massive long-term problems for US security in the region.

What else is different in the alternate universe you live in, apart from Obama not backing Israel to the hilt for nearly 99% of his term?

In the eyes of Zionists, anyone who thinks that Palestinians must be treated as human beings is considered an anti-semite.

Counterpoint, - would the Palestinian's treat me, a Gay person, as a human? No. But Israel would. Same point, is a Palestinian in Israel more free than a Palestinian in Gaza, under Hamas? Of course. The issue isn't black and white.

( Sorry if this is off topic. )

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's hilarious to hear people defend the "christian values" of the past that were also used to justify human bondage, lynchings, violent jim crow segregation, the slaughter of millions of innocent poor people all around the world.

 Would Jesus deny somebody Healthacre, or was it written that he healed the sick?

 Would Jesus bomb poor children in Southeast Asia?

 Would Jesus teargas poor people fleeing government incompetence and oppression, or was it not said that his mother fled the tyranny of the ruler who wanted to kill him?

 Conservatives are not Christian by values, they are Christian by identity and constantly reject Christian values to instead embrace greed, violence against others, lack of the most basic compassion, and rigid judgement of others without understanding.

It was the more Christian elements of America that were the driving force of the Abolitionist movement.  It was also the more Chrsitian elements of America that made the Civil Rights Movement a success.

Just exactly how can people say that they have "Christian values", yet advocate for abortion on demand, or advocate for the permissibllity of sexual activity outside of a man and a woman married to each other?  That's a mystery for me as well.  I get your point, and it's well taken (to a point), but I certainly don't see how abortion or homosexual practices are consistent with Christian vales, either (by Biblical standards).  Your point cuts both ways.  The issues I speak of are clearly not sanctioned in Scripture, yet people simply ignore that aspect of it.  "God is Love", this is true, and it is Biblical, but Love is not God.

Now I certainly don't approve of a good deal of the military interventions America has engaged in, but many of our involvements have been to come to the defense of people and nations being attacked by others (granting that many of these fights were not our fights). 

And, please, let's be real about the "aslylum seekers".  The "asylum seekers" of the present day made it to Mexico.  The rules of asylum are clear; asylum seekers have the right to seek asylum in the nearest safe country.  That country is Mexico.  You know that (or should know that). 

I certainly believe that the Body of Christ has lost its way (somewhat) over political issues, but that cuts both ways as well. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

But we were, in my lifetime, a Christian-IZED nation.  A nation where the Christian influence of our Founding Fathers wes taught in schools and celebrated.  Where the Church, and the idea of God were held by people with a degree of reverance, even if they were not religious.  Where the Ten Commandments were the standard for public morailty, even among unbelievers.  Where, despite differences, when American prayed, they were, for the most part, praying to the same God.

Why it surprises people that we, as a nation, have experienced more disunity as we become less Christianized is a mystery to me.  That we, as a people, prayed to the same God was a unifying force.  Those days are gone, and they are not likely to come back, short of a miracle of God, Himself.  But let's not kid ourselves; the secularism today that is a secularism steeped in open hostility to the idea of a God that is, indeed, an Authority Figure, has not always been the dominant moral force in our society.  I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't.

The Big Bad Scary Brown Muslims pray to the same God you do and you hate them anyway.

A bunch of extremely devout Christians from Central America want to move here and you don't want them here because they aren't white.

Just admit that it was never about Christianity with your type - it was always about race.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It was the more Christian elements of America that were the driving force of the Abolitionist movement.  It was also the more Chrsitian elements of America that made the Civil Rights Movement a success.

There is truth in what you’re saying here, but you’re overstating it and also leaving out important context. It is certainly true that there was a Christian character to much of the abolitionist movement, but your assertion that more Christian meant more abolitionist is both unsupported and also contradicted by the often extremely Christian character of slaveholders. Likewise with opposition to the Civil Rights movement. I think most of those who opposed civil rights for black people would be affronted at the assertion that they didn’t represent the more Christian elements of America.

[pbrower2a]

His foreign policy was largely dictated by a personal animus against Netanyahu and nearly caused massive long-term problems for US security in the region.

What else is different in the alternate universe you live in, apart from Obama not backing Israel to the hilt for nearly 99% of his term?

In the eyes of Zionists, anyone who thinks that Palestinians must be treated as human beings is considered an anti-semite.

The number of Palestinians who fled the 'Zionist Entity' is about the same as the number of Jews who left Arab countries for Israel. If Palestinians are doing less well in Arab countries than Jews from Arab countries are doing in Israel, then that says something unflattering about Arab countries that have sought to return such Palestinians to a Judenrein Palestine. Israel has no problem with assimilation between the mostly-Sephardic Jews from the Arab world with descendants of the German- and Yiddish- speaking Ashkenazim who practically founded Israel and established it as a refuge for Jews who could either find no safety in Europe or could get along solely by abandoning Judaism.

Most Arab states have determined that Palestinians are not in the same national classification of themselves even if they are born to the grandchildren of Palestinian Arabs who left the Palestinian mandate seventy or more years ago. The problem isn't that Israel isn't theirs; the problem is that they are not accepted as part of the Arab country in which they live. Such people may have been more welcome in the United States, a truly secular society that does not use (except in pathological exceptions) religion as a division between 'legitimate' Americans and others. Consider that Jews in Israel have made little claim to want to take back large sections of such a city as Vilnius that had a vibrant Jewish community before the Great Satan conquered it in 1941 and soon afterward started killing the Jews.

[GP270watch]

It was the more Christian elements of America that were the driving force of the Abolitionist movement.  It was also the more Chrsitian elements of America that made the Civil Rights Movement a success.

 Was it? How do you quantify more Christian. Sure the White Quakers where anti-Slavery but they don't make up anywhere near the majority of American Christians. Black Christians in Civil Rights where opposed every step of the way by the much larger white evangelicals, who were often their tormentors and held government positions of authority. White evangelicals are America's largest most powerful political voting block. Catholics don't vote in lockstep like White Evangelicals and Catholics vote a mix of their own values and not Church doctrine.

 Your argument is flawed. You took criticisms I had about what the government did or does, and how American Christians supported and participate in these actions. Abortion is not something the government does. Abortion is a procedure that a woman has in the privacy of her Medical doctor's office as a part of her Healthcare. The government actually restricts abortion, and that's the offensive government action. Christianity being against abortion is a modern phenomenon based on women gaining rights and freedoms. It doesn't have anything to do with traditional Christian doctrine. Do the research and you'll be surprised.

 Mexico is not a safe country for many migrants. There is a Narco-terrorist Drug War due almost entirely to America's insatiable appetite for drugs and the very un-Christian failure to treat it as a public health epidemic and help people, instead of jailing them and further ruining their lives for being addicted and poor. Plenty of rich addicts get in trouble but are never jailed.

[GMantis]

It was the more Christian elements of America that were the driving force of the Abolitionist movement.  It was also the more Chrsitian elements of America that made the Civil Rights Movement a success.

More exactly the more Christian elements of the northern states of America. The more Christian elements of the southern states were arguing that slavery was sanctioned by the bible, with some going as far as accusing Abolitionists who were relying on the bible of heresy. And they certainly had a point. The Bible so concerned with who might or might not sleep with whom, does not proscribe slavery and has many passages that implicitly recognize the institution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The American intervention in Southeast Asia, which was specifically referenced, is most certainly not in this category. Now unlike slavery, this kind of war can be said to be proscribed by the Bible. Didn't stop many US Christians from supporting it of course.

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was openly black.

[NHI]

Short of a few policy issues, the more and more I see Barack Obama was a decent President.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It was the more Christian elements of America that were the driving force of the Abolitionist movement.  It was also the more Chrsitian elements of America that made the Civil Rights Movement a success.

 Your argument is flawed. You took criticisms I had about what the government did or does, and how American Christians supported and participate in these actions. Abortion is not something the government does. Abortion is a procedure that a woman has in the privacy of her Medical doctor's office as a part of her Healthcare. The government actually restricts abortion, and that's the offensive government action. Christianity being against abortion is a modern phenomenon based on women gaining rights and freedoms. It doesn't have anything to do with traditional Christian doctrine. Do the research and you'll be surprised.

This is a common misconception with no basis in reality.  Christians in the Roman Empire opposed abortion as well.  They did this in spite of the fact that the culture they lived in had no problem with abortion.  Now why would they do that?

Look around the world and you'll see that the countries where Christians who take the religion seriously are the majority, abortion is banned or at least heavily restricted.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

It was the more Christian elements of America that were the driving force of the Abolitionist movement.  It was also the more Chrsitian elements of America that made the Civil Rights Movement a success.

 Your argument is flawed. You took criticisms I had about what the government did or does, and how American Christians supported and participate in these actions. Abortion is not something the government does. Abortion is a procedure that a woman has in the privacy of her Medical doctor's office as a part of her Healthcare. The government actually restricts abortion, and that's the offensive government action. Christianity being against abortion is a modern phenomenon based on women gaining rights and freedoms. It doesn't have anything to do with traditional Christian doctrine. Do the research and you'll be surprised.

This is a common misconception with no basis in reality.  Christians in the Roman Empire opposed abortion as well.  They did this in spite of the fact that the culture they lived in had no problem with abortion.  Now why would they do that?

Look around the world and you'll see that the countries where Christians who take the religion seriously are the majority, abortion is banned or at least heavily restricted.

Yeah, I way prefer the part where priests force women into abortions for claimed infidelity!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do people not see religion for the crock it is... Smh.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama wasnt a socialist, he was from machine politics and was endorsed by New Democrat Mayor Daley, whose father was part of the more conservative wing of the Democratic party.

Boehner refused to reform entitlements like Paul Ryan and rather focus on repeal and replace Obama care

[TPIG]

Barack Obama's Presidency was failure.

On the domestic front, his anti-growth approach to the economy, which consisted of increased taxes and unchaining regulatory agencies ensured that his presidency would be one marked by anemic economic growth. The fact that his economic recovery after the Great Recession was the weakest in 70 years is a testament to this fact. His largest achievement, Obamacare, has been a failure. From causing millions of Americans to lose their insurance, to the economically harmful employer mandate/regressive individual mandate, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Obamacare failed to improve the American healthcare system.

On the international stage, from ignoring the threat of Russia, to putting distance between us and Israel, and engaging in the ineffective/dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama's approach to foreign policy was a record of weakness and naivete.

I do find this an unfairly harsh judgement.

Obama took office in the wake of something that was more than just a recession; it was an economic event that caused longstanding structural damage to our economy that was caused, unquestionably, by Republican economic policies that sought to create a "boom" economy that was fueled by inflated housing values, and not by real growth in the economy.  It was Republican policies that caused housing values in America to soar far out of proportion to what working people actually earned; a certain amount of the housing crash was an inevitable correction that the Republican economic policymakers of the Bush 43 administration should have known would occur.  

I personally believe that the main problem with Obama's Stimulus policies was that they didn't go far enough.  In that regard, the GOP is to blame, because they did not want Obama to succeed.  They wanted more of the same that created the problem.  If the Democrats have become a party which worship secularism, the GOP has become a party that worships capitalism to the point of Social Darwinism.

The insurance that Obamacare caused people to use was, for the most part, junk insurance with inadequate coverage; something that people could present to get them into the hospital in a pinch, only to hear soon afterward that they aren't covered.  The GOP has long governed America in a manner where they have been unconcerned for the masses without health insurance, or who were plunged in to medical bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness; they have opposed any and all proposals that included universal coverage.  And they have refused to consider legislation designed to fix the flaws in Obamacare; they WANTED it to fail and WORKED for it to fail.  And they have no plan that will, indeed, ensure healthcare access to all that will not bankrupt people.  (I thought, at one time, that Trump actually had some ideas that would fix the flaws in Obamacare, but he's apparently cast his lot making deals with the Freedom Caucus, which is not what I had in mind when I voted for him.)  

Obama had his flaws.  His foreign policy failed to extract us from any number of foolish foreign entanglements, and some of his accomplishments don't look as good in hindsight (although the Iran Nuclear Deal WAS a positive on balance).  And he wrecked the Democratic Party; the Clinton's takeover of the party apparatus was accomplished, in part, because of Obama's neglect of the party, itself.  I certainly didn't enjoy the social liberalism, not at all.  But the GOP Congress dealt with him with ill will, unconcerned for the common weal.  Their whole goal was to work to see him fail, and they were pretty open and honest about that.  I abhor "The Resistance" Congress to Trump, and I view the concept as un-American, but a certain amount of that is a response to "The Obstruction" that the GOP presented Obama.  There was never ANY good will extended Obama by Republcans.  None at all.  They wanted him to fail so they could get back in power, and they didn't really hide it.  In that regard, Obama may have been better off being more like Trump; giving more crap to his opponents that he got from them.  

I suppose my assessment of Obama is mixed because of my mixed outlook (economic liberal, social conservative) on issues.  He's not Mount Rushmore material, but the harsh judgements on his Presidency by Republicans are purely partisan.  Compromise and achievement on the part of Republicans during the Obama years would have been wonderful for America, both practically and socially, but Republicans were no better at putting the whole of America ahead of partisanship then than Democrats are now.

(Apologies for any grammatical errors below; it's late, and I'm drowsy).

Surprisingly, though I find much to disagree with in your post, there's some I do agree with. Republican policies (note I say Republican and not conservative) toward housing, which were a continuation of the policies of Bill Clinton, such as the Community Re-investment Act and continually lowering mortgage standards for the sake of promoting "inclusive" home-ownership, proved to be a massive failure. The economy was in meltdown mode. Obama continued the Bush legacy of bailouts and ensured that the reckless behavior would continue. Sadly, both Republican and Democratic presidents buy the old Keynesian crackpot theories on how to prime the economic pump, thus my main issue with Obama's economic record is not the anti-recession measures he took in 2009. Rather, my issue is his record of raising taxes on job creators, unleashing regulatory agencies at an unprecedented rate, and his overall hostile approach towards business.

On the healthcare front, I sadly agree with you that the GOP often acts with disdain towards the uninsured. GOP opposition to Obamacare was based largely on a knee-jerk reaction against Obama and less out of an ideological commitment to a true, market-based healthcare reform. I will say though, I don't believe there was ever any way to "fix the flaws" in Obamacare. It's a program that operates against market forces, drives up premiums and hurts Americans. It's a fundamentally flawed program. That's not to say the system in place before was acceptable; it certainly wasn't. Sadly, neither party is truly interested in a free-market solution to the healthcare issue, which would increase competition, lower costs, and improve both the quality of healthcare and the accessibility of care for the poorest in our society.

Overall, Obama was a president who intended good things but failed. His efforts to "help the middle class" led to stagnation and low-growth. His Affordable Care Act was neither affordable nor improved the quality of care in our country, and abroad, he projected weakness. I stand by my original claims, not as someone who is just looking for reasons to hate Obama but because I truly believe and the record shows he failed at leaving the nation in good-standing.

[Ye We Can]

His foreign policy was absolutely atrocious and he wasn't an effective politician, and more like a popular figurehead for most of his administration. Obviously, I admire Obama the man however.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Barack Obama's Presidency was failure.

On the domestic front, his anti-growth approach to the economy, which consisted of increased taxes and unchaining regulatory agencies ensured that his presidency would be one marked by anemic economic growth. The fact that his economic recovery after the Great Recession was the weakest in 70 years is a testament to this fact. His largest achievement, Obamacare, has been a failure. From causing millions of Americans to lose their insurance, to the economically harmful employer mandate/regressive individual mandate, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Obamacare failed to improve the American healthcare system.

On the international stage, from ignoring the threat of Russia, to putting distance between us and Israel, and engaging in the ineffective/dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama's approach to foreign policy was a record of weakness and naivete.

I do find this an unfairly harsh judgement.

Obama took office in the wake of something that was more than just a recession; it was an economic event that caused longstanding structural damage to our economy that was caused, unquestionably, by Republican economic policies that sought to create a "boom" economy that was fueled by inflated housing values, and not by real growth in the economy.  It was Republican policies that caused housing values in America to soar far out of proportion to what working people actually earned; a certain amount of the housing crash was an inevitable correction that the Republican economic policymakers of the Bush 43 administration should have known would occur.  

I personally believe that the main problem with Obama's Stimulus policies was that they didn't go far enough.  In that regard, the GOP is to blame, because they did not want Obama to succeed.  They wanted more of the same that created the problem.  If the Democrats have become a party which worship secularism, the GOP has become a party that worships capitalism to the point of Social Darwinism.

The insurance that Obamacare caused people to use was, for the most part, junk insurance with inadequate coverage; something that people could present to get them into the hospital in a pinch, only to hear soon afterward that they aren't covered.  The GOP has long governed America in a manner where they have been unconcerned for the masses without health insurance, or who were plunged in to medical bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness; they have opposed any and all proposals that included universal coverage.  And they have refused to consider legislation designed to fix the flaws in Obamacare; they WANTED it to fail and WORKED for it to fail.  And they have no plan that will, indeed, ensure healthcare access to all that will not bankrupt people.  (I thought, at one time, that Trump actually had some ideas that would fix the flaws in Obamacare, but he's apparently cast his lot making deals with the Freedom Caucus, which is not what I had in mind when I voted for him.)  

Obama had his flaws.  His foreign policy failed to extract us from any number of foolish foreign entanglements, and some of his accomplishments don't look as good in hindsight (although the Iran Nuclear Deal WAS a positive on balance).  And he wrecked the Democratic Party; the Clinton's takeover of the party apparatus was accomplished, in part, because of Obama's neglect of the party, itself.  I certainly didn't enjoy the social liberalism, not at all.  But the GOP Congress dealt with him with ill will, unconcerned for the common weal.  Their whole goal was to work to see him fail, and they were pretty open and honest about that.  I abhor "The Resistance" Congress to Trump, and I view the concept as un-American, but a certain amount of that is a response to "The Obstruction" that the GOP presented Obama.  There was never ANY good will extended Obama by Republcans.  None at all.  They wanted him to fail so they could get back in power, and they didn't really hide it.  In that regard, Obama may have been better off being more like Trump; giving more crap to his opponents that he got from them.  

I suppose my assessment of Obama is mixed because of my mixed outlook (economic liberal, social conservative) on issues.  He's not Mount Rushmore material, but the harsh judgements on his Presidency by Republicans are purely partisan.  Compromise and achievement on the part of Republicans during the Obama years would have been wonderful for America, both practically and socially, but Republicans were no better at putting the whole of America ahead of partisanship then than Democrats are now.

(Apologies for any grammatical errors below; it's late, and I'm drowsy).

Surprisingly, though I find much to disagree with in your post, there's some I do agree with. Republican policies (note I say Republican and not conservative) toward housing, which were a continuation of the policies of Bill Clinton, such as the Community Re-investment Act and continually lowering mortgage standards for the sake of promoting "inclusive" home-ownership, proved to be a massive failure. The economy was in meltdown mode. Obama continued the Bush legacy of bailouts and ensured that the reckless behavior would continue. Sadly, both Republican and Democratic presidents buy the old Keynesian crackpot theories on how to prime the economic pump, thus my main issue with Obama's economic record is not the anti-recession measures he took in 2009. Rather, my issue is his record of raising taxes on job creators, unleashing regulatory agencies at an unprecedented rate, and his overall hostile approach towards business.

On the healthcare front, I sadly agree with you that the GOP often acts with disdain towards the uninsured. GOP opposition to Obamacare was based largely on a knee-jerk reaction against Obama and less out of an ideological commitment to a true, market-based healthcare reform. I will say though, I don't believe there was ever any way to "fix the flaws" in Obamacare. It's a program that operates against market forces, drives up premiums and hurts Americans. It's a fundamentally flawed program. That's not to say the system in place before was acceptable; it certainly wasn't. Sadly, neither party is truly interested in a free-market solution to the healthcare issue, which would increase competition, lower costs, and improve both the quality of healthcare and the accessibility of care for the poorest in our society.

Overall, Obama was a president who intended good things but failed. His efforts to "help the middle class" led to stagnation and low-growth. His Affordable Care Act was neither affordable nor improved the quality of care in our country, and abroad, he projected weakness. I stand by my original claims, not as someone who is just looking for reasons to hate Obama but because I truly believe and the record shows he failed at leaving the nation in good-standing.

I have long believed that the real objection to Obamacare from the GOP was the idea that Democrats would get credit for it.

Obamacare was a recycled Republican idea.  It's the same idea, for the most part, as Romneycare.  Indeed, it's roots are in an idea for National Health Insurance pushed by Republicans in the 1970s.  (I'm old enough to have watched a discussion of this issue in the 1970s, and what turned out to be Obamacare was similar to the plan advanced by the 1970s GOP.  IIRC, it was Bill Brock that was discussing the Republican Plan on that show.)

Had the GOP been willing to honestly partner with Obama on this issue, the plan would have worked better than it has.  While I supported Obamacare's adoption, at this point I believe that the insurance program of Obamacare will eventually collapse of its own weight, as the GOP wishes to see it fail.

[pbrower2a]

Obama wasnt a socialist, he was from machine politics and was endorsed by New Democrat Mayor Daley, whose father was part of the more conservative wing of the Democratic party.

Boehner refused to reform entitlements like Paul Ryan and rather focus on repeal and replace Obama care

Truth be told, the Chicago machine wanted him out of Chicago as quickly as possible. If he had stayed in Chicago he would have been a reformer who would call for integrity in politics; if he went the prosecutor route he would have been a rackets-busting DA who got crooked politicians sent to prison. He was far safer to all concerned as a State Senator who would go onto the national scene.

That was a good judgment on their part. The Chicago Machine preferred Rod Blagojevich as Governor. It got Blagojevich as Governor, much to the worse.