Obama’s Actions Amplify Racism, Deliver Weak Recovery

Posted: September 1, 2013 at 2:23 a.m.

It is my fondest hope every president would go down in history as outstanding. Presidents become great by doing great things for America. Unfortunately, history has not smiled on all. I’m sure President Barack Obama wants an illustrious legacy. He must remember, however, his legacy will not be written by the low-information voters who helped elect him, but by historians who will dissect his policies and the results they produced.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 09/01/2013

Great article today. Very well said. No one, not even liberals, can dispute those comments.

Posted by: footballfan

September 1, 2013 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agree 100% with you footballfan. Mr. Canfield hit one out of the park.

Posted by: JailBird

September 1, 2013 at 9:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Seems there's an inexhaustible flow of drivel from Canfield and an equally inexhaustible number of low information trolls to admire the drivel.

Does Canfield actually believe that any president can "promise" some particular level of employment? Unemployment data is complex, with variables interacting from innumerable of aspects of the national and global economies. Aside from policies with regard to the federal work force, a president has little independent control over the national unemployment rate. Anyone who holds a president directly accountable for unemployment statistics is trying to simplify a complex dynamic to match the limits of a simple mind.

But simple minds will think in simple ways. The racial "sentiment" data which Canfield presents to bolster his case for Obama's failure is a simple drivel homerun. Anyone who believes that the complexities of racism in America can be summarized in raw polling data and presented as evidence of a president's failure should keep a drivel tissue handy.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

September 1, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>> I believe historians will say, “Promises made; promises not kept.”

Except, historians don't say that. Propagandists say that which is all you need to know about this piece of foolishness.

Posted by: cdawg

September 1, 2013 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Somebody's gonna git a spank'in. Back in a flash.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 1, 2013 at 11:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Foot: "No one, not even liberals, can dispute those comments.">>

Watch me.

I thought Canfield wasn't as dense or extreme as the regular right-wingnut crew, but his stinky shovel load this time is quite inexcusable.

Can: "It is my fondest hope every president would go down in history as outstanding.">>

I don't believe that.

C: "President Obama had a unique opportunity to unite and heal our country...">>

Rubbish. One third of your wingnut party are so "low information" they think he's a Muslim, and as GW Bush's speech writer notes, 45% of the GOP are birthers. A president in an opposing party can't heal that kind of systemic ignorance. It's remarkable Obama has been able to do anything with such a large percentage of your party being devoted to utter, disgraceful, embarrasing, stupidity. And you're not helping.

C: "when he took offce he... He threw $800 billion of our money at it [healthcare]...">>

He ran on delivering heathcare and if the republicans had been successful in their full out attempts to kybosh it, you would now be bragging about how he is such a loser for failing to deliver on his central promise. And then, for a change, you would be right.

C: "He promised the unemployment rate would not go above 8 percent and by mid-2012">>

Let's give this tired old talking point a kick, again. I've read the actual report he was referring to, and as with any economic analysis of estimated future results, it was filled with all of the usual caveats and error ranges. When politicians give speeches, they don't mention all of the footnotes in a report they cite (ever). Note the qualifiers in the report:

"1 Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

And in the conclusion:
"This study has sought to investigate the likely job creation effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan currently under consideration. As emphasized at many points in the analysis,
there is substantial uncertainty around all of our estimates...."

This was before the full impact of Bush's Great Recession had hit.

Can: "unemployment exploded to 10.1 percent in 2009">>

Yes, and if you think that had anything to do with Obama, you're even dumber than you appear.

Can: "Today’s rate of 7.4 percent is still far above his promise for last year.">>

He didn't "promise," and again, there are very good reasons why conservatives should avoid the topic of jobs. Here are a few of them:

1) More private sector jobs created in 2010 under Obama than under eight years of Bush.
http://tinyurl.com/24smpkc And: http://tinyurl.com/4hq8dbt


Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 1, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Said this before and here it is again. Some of you folks need to leave Disney NWA and venture out to the real world. Take a trip to Little Rock or Memphis and talk to anyone that lives there and see what this give away president has fostered. Any of you still working check your tax statement every week and then go to the free cell phone line or the grocery store to see where it goes. Not in the US infrastructure for sure. I bet at least 500 young blacks have been murdered since that Martin kid but since most are blacks killing blacks Obama says nothing. To provoke racial tension he comments on one thats different. Martin stood his ground, did not flee and lost. Most of the comments I hear here in South Caroline start out with "that WHITE man had no business killing that black man. My company is paying $56,000,000 to the government in the next 2 years to fund a severely flawed Obama care. The cost of that to me is reduced benefits that I worked to earn. Racist? No. Realist? Yep.

Posted by: rsl196601241345

September 1, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2) The US did not gain a single private sector job under Bush, having a net loss of 673,000 private-sector jobs. http://tinyurl.com/4hq8dbt

3) As of June 2012, more jobs were created in three and half years under Obama, than under the entire 12 years of the 3 terms of father and son Bush. http://tinyurl.com/dtrrp

4) Over the last 75 years, job creation has always been better under democratic administrations. The worst performing Democratic president beats every republican president. http://tinyurl.com/6cd9uo

Can: "Even if you throw out his first two years in office, his unemployment rate is the worst average since Eisenhower,">>

Wrong. Learn:

Unemployment Rates in 1983
January 1983 - 10.4%
February - 10.4%
March - 10.3%
April - 10.2%
May - 10.1%
June - 10.1%
July - 9.4%
August - 9.5%
September - 9.2%
October - 8.8%
November - 8.5%
December - 8.3%
And: http://tinyurl.com/6l5eaw2

Does this newspaper have access to someone who can fact check the nonsense it's opiners post or do we readers have to do everything around here?

Can: "We only have his promises, his results and the huge gap between them.">>

No, we also have wingnuts like you who are too lazy to partake in the most cursory fact check of your claims. Politifact rank: "Mostly false."

Regarding the report:
"Their report projected that the economic stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. ...they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.
The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers."

Stop shoveling years old garbage. It confuses the kiddies.

Can: "He called conservatives “the enemy” on Univision...">>

This is someone scraping the bottom of their barrel. Let's review. On a radio almost 3 years ago, Obama said:
"If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder."

Boehner is offended and says:
"Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word 'enemy' for fellow Americans, [blah blah blah]."

Obama responds to this fake outrage days later: "I probably should have used the word 'opponents' instead of 'enemies,'
And then: "Now the Republicans are saying that I'm calling them enemies," Obama said. "What I'm saying is you're an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different."

Oh the horror. He didn't use a comfortable word. I have no trouble calling these wingnuts who have no concern for truth, enemies.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 1, 2013 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Can: "historians will say, “Promises made; promises not kept.”>>

Politifact has tracked 500 promises Obama has made. Currently the status is:

Promise Kept 241 (45%)
Compromise 131 (25%)
Promise Broken 118 (22%)
Stalled 5 (1%)
In the Works 30 (6%)
Not yet rated 7 (1%

They have tracked 53 GOP pledges. Here's how that's going:
Promise Kept 20 (38%)
Compromise 16 (30%)
Promise Broken 17 (32%)

Can: "the president clearly believes in a bigger government than I do,...">>

His government is smaller than Reagan's. "The size of the US government in total number of federal employees, by president"

Notice that Obama's number of federal government employees is 20% smaller than St. Reagan's. This even though the country has 35% more population now.

Can: "Whether it is “Fast and Furious” or Benghazi or the IRS or AP wiretaps or the NSA.">>

Yes, a mouthful of rubbish. I smacked each of these and a bunch more, with reference. All nicely numbered, starts here:

Can: "I hope none of these scandals can be traced to our president,">>

Sure you don't. All of your favorite scandals have fizzled. Had you bothered to check, you might have known this already and found out what you "hope" is the case.

Can: "The president could stop demonizing the right">>

I think he shows remarkable, if not super human, restraint. Here's an idea, how about if you stop lying about him?

Handy fun fact: "...government spending as a share of GDP is lower in 2013 than it was in every year of the Reagan presidency except 1988 when spending was 21.3 percent of GDP, 0.2 percentage points lower than the 2013 share."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 1, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks to rs| for clarifying. Realist is the new racist.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

September 1, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>> My company is paying $56,000,000 to the government in the next 2 years to fund a severely flawed Obama care. The cost of that to me is reduced benefits that I worked to earn. Racist? No. Realist? Yep.

Wow! Your company must be profitable. Do you actually
"own" it as in "my company" or just an employee?

You should try to get a job with Exxon-Mobil. They're the most profitable corporation in the world and some years pay ZERO income taxes. EXXON's 2012 profit was $41 billion.

Posted by: cdawg

September 1, 2013 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"It is my fondest hope every president would go down in history as outstanding."
It's a logical impossibility, like Garrison Keillor's description of Lake Woebegon "where all the children are above average."

Posted by: Coralie

September 1, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Three differences between Canfield and the historians who will actually evaluate Obama's administration in years to come:
1. Historians are knowledgeable about history and know what they are comparing with what.
2. Historians attempt to be objective and certainly not narrowly partisan.
3. Historians usually wait a few years to let the dust settle before they make their pronouncements.

Posted by: Coralie

September 1, 2013 at 3:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Goush, how the liberals squeal like a gutted goose, when ya pull their chain. Good job rsl and footballfan, and of course, our main man, Kevin Canfield. Without you Kevin, none of this would have been possible.

Posted by: JailBird

September 1, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The president could stop demonizing the right and embrace a few conservative ideas."
You mean like the Affordable Care Act, first outlined by conservative think tanks and put in place in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney?

Posted by: Coralie

September 1, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cor: " first outlined by conservative think tanks...">>

In picture form: https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 1, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now the goat is rendered speechless, to bad it wasn't just rendered.

Posted by: JailBird

September 2, 2013 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Obama is an idiot that likes to play golf. Not hard to understand.

Posted by: jeffieboy

September 2, 2013 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No business will risk anything or grow until Emporor Obama is hisory.

Posted by: jeffieboy

September 2, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just because it's so easy. More pictures and data for our ankle biters:

Jeff: "Obama... likes to play golf.">>

BAM: https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.ne...

You know who's playing the golf? That would be the Speaker of the House. "John Boehner told Golf Digest that he plays upwards of 100 rounds a year."
That's four times as much as Obama.

Jeff :"No business will risk anything or grow until Emporor(sic) Obama is hisory(sic).">>

Let's check: "Obama Is The Fifth President To See The S&P 500 Double While In Office"

And: "The Best Presidents for the Economy"
Looking at... "...five economic variables going back to 1900, covering every president from Teddy Roosevelt to Barack Obama."

Stock market, Obama comes in 4th:

And corporate profits, oh my, lookie here, he comes in 1st place: http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images...

Maybe someday well have a conservative on these boards that can patch an argument together that isn't completely ridiculous, and if it's not too much to ask, one that isn't so obviously false.

"...government spending as a share of GDP is lower in 2013 than it was in every year of the Reagan presidency except 1988..."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 2, 2013 at 9:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"No business will risk anything or grow until Emporor Obama is hisory." - jeffieboy

You have any actual information about why you think your statement is true, jeffieboy?

Or is it just a gut feeling (maybe gas?)?

Posted by: User13

September 4, 2013 at 11:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wouldn't start a business until the Muslim president is history. The golfer hasn't effected my writing of pulp fiction, and my latest Jake Logan book is on the shelf right now! Freeby is in it, but unfortunately, it did not survive. Sex and violence have not been effected by the worst president in US history.

Posted by: JailBird

September 4, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wouldn't one who claims to be a writer be expected to use the words effect and affect properly? Who's your editor, dude?

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

September 6, 2013 at 6:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )