Were There Any Policy Errors in Obama's First Two Years?

And if so, why does a bright guy like Obama have such a hard time fessing up to them?





Does he think the American People are so unconscious, and so mentally asleep that he can trashtalk his way into "Great President" status?





Here's what Mitch McConnell said today:





"As I see it, the White House has a choice," McConnell said in his speech."They can change course, or they can double down on a vision of government that the American people have roundly rejected."





Doubling down did not work for G.W. Bush. After the first 1000 soldiers were killed in Iraq, Bush could either cut his losses, admit his mistakes, and get out, or he could double down, send twice as many soldiers for twice as long. He chose to double down.





After the Battle of Fallujah which showed that the USA controlled no part of Iraq, and was barely even a match in a firefight with ragtag insurgents and street punks, Bush had to decide again, should he pull out, or should he double down again. With the help of McCain, Bush chosse to double down again.





So now about US 5000 soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and when we leave, if we ever leave, the place will be 100% perfect bloodbath every Iraqi shooting at every other Iraqi, pretty much just like we found the place.





My point: Doubling down does not always work. It seems a good strategy if the resources being consumed in the wager are not one's own. One can win big or lose not much more than one is already losing.





But that game theory view does not really apply if one is bound to have successors in interest -- there will still be liberals in the USA after Obama leaves office.





If he stubbornly refuses to admit any policy errors, and puts all his failures down to not communicating his message well enough, or the intransigence of the GOP, or the stupidiy of the People (which arises from their fear), then he will spend the next two years trying to double down on all the bad bets he made in the first two years. Let's have another and bigger stimulus bill -- let's give more of it to the SEIU. Let's add a public option to Obamacare. Let's take the 401 K's and the IRA's and throw that money into the Social Security Trust Fund so the wealth can be shared. Let's promise Karzai that we will stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to build the nation into a really first class and first world nation.





Doubling down, and doing no 180's on policy will result in the end of Liberalism as a viable political position in USA. Obama will not just ruin himself, he will ruin his party and his idelogly and make his worldview anathema in USA for generations.





What could he possibly hope to gain that is worth that sort of downside risk?





Is a second term worth that to him?





If his policy errors really are errors what is the Expectancy Value that they will be seen as brilliant policy choices by November of 2012?





Would that be a high expectancy value or a low one?





If a low one, why wouldn't Obama really come clean about the mistakes he's made, including cramming Obamacare down America's throat.





Why wouldn't he have a better chance to get a second term by playing the role of Prodigal Son, instead of the role of El Duce the Mussolini of Infallibility?





How would he be harmed by purging the White Housse of each any every one of his old Homies from Southside Chicago, and bringing in a cadre of H. Ross Perot types -- really capable managers and business people -- maybe Carly and Meg -- maybe Bill and Warren -- maybe a few military people like Sestak and McCaffrey, people that have done something, held a job, met a payroll, made a plan, not just community organizing -- people that have created a product, or managed a project -- not just teaching in a lawschool.





If Obama abandoned all his policy ideas, and trusted his well being to people he does not know except that they are extremely capable and competent as managers, he might end up two years from now as a big success. It's hard to argue with success. He would be likely to get a second term -- nobody would want to break up that team (like nobody really wanted to break up the team in Clinton's first or second terms). Americans know what's good for them. Asinine ideas are not good for them, but Federal programs that work really well are.





I give you some food for thought -- maybe now you give me your thoughts -- and the people who don't like this food can get stuffed on something else.|||Andy is incorrect in his response and perhaps needs to review whitehouse.gov, recovery.gov, or politifact.com's Obameter for a better perspective.





I was disappointed that President Obama didn't PUSH HARDER for the Public Option in his health care initiative because this would have been well-received by a majority of Americans and would have provided COST CONTROLS for the out-of-control greed-drive 1300 for-profit insurance companies. But the Obama style has been to treat the Legislative branch as adults and give them free rein to work out the details for the Affordable Care Act on their own, with occasional input and PUSH from the White House (often from Rahm Emanual, I believe, but also from President Obama directly in face-to-face meetings with both parties and also with just Democrats). I do understand, however, that the FULL PLATTER of issues which which President Obama was faced upon taking office had to take precedence over the complex and highly important health care reforms.





This was reported to be the most PRODUCTIVE CONGRESS in "more than 50 years" by Associated Press (October posting on Yahoo's Home Page news)! Despite all of the BLOCKADES and INTERFERENCE set up by the "just say no to absolutely EVERYTHING" Republicans, more than 200 pieces of legislation were passed and signed into law by this incredible administration! The biggest "failing" (if not tooting one's own horn enough can be called a failure) of the Obama administration, in my opinion, is NOT HAVING A PR FIRM on retainer the way Bush/Cheney did (and his daddy Bush Sr. before him)---they used Hill %26amp; Knowlton in D.C. (Rossi, 2005).|||Your question, long as it is, assumes he HAS any policy and from what I've been able to discern, he doesn't, not in any real sense.


Spending for the sake of spending and ramming your agenda down the collective throat of the general populace, is not a policy, it is an arrogant exercise of power and Obama is certainly arrogant.|||Healthcare.


(They needed to hire 19,000 is agenst to enforce it. Those people are not good for your health you know.)


Maybe the brevity of my answer compensates for the length of the question


www.wecanknow.com|||Wow. This is way too much to read. I'll give you one. He campaigned on hope and change, but more importantly on transparency. His administration has been one of the most closed-door, petty, and "Nixon-like" since...Nixon. That's a huge policy error.