Different issue then, Zack, it being about who was the better candidate, and who was likely to win, etc., in other words, politics. For all its importance, politics doesn't come close to the importance of governance, and leadership, in the highest office in the land. Obama is the President now, and the issue is no longer properly, "Do you support Obama." Rather, it's about the governance of the country, right or wrong. Most of us can find something we think he's done right, and things we think he's not: it's no longer as important that it's "Obama" who's doing it, as what it is that he's doing. As for me, and perhaps others as well, in addition to those actions I didn't fully agree with, for one reason or another, my problem with him is that he still doesn't seem to have fully realized you can't "lead from behind", which is his style. What I think I mean by that is that he likes to work quietly, behind the scenes, using his unique power of persuasion- with those who are not unwilling to be persuaded- to get a consensus. But, the office calls for more than that. He will have to be truly willing to lead. For him to begin to do that, in the style I'm thinking of, will require him to get seriously "burned" a few more times as he has been, and will be again, by hard nosed politicians and others. McChrystal embarrassing him, as he did, in a situation in which the President had placed his confidence in him to execute a difficult and risky plan, is an example. Wallowing about, indecisively, in a crisis like the disaster in the Gulf, and then taking wrong action, like suspending deep water drilling, rather than ordering an immediate review of government inspection records to reveal other possibly troubled drilling operations, seems to me to be an example of inappropriate response from the executive branch- which is charged with responsibility to oversee these operations for safety, not simply rely on the oil companies to do it. The President has the chief responsibility for making sure the executive branch is functioning as it should, to protect the public interest: long term, we have to review whether to continue to allow deep water drilling, but the immediate need was to stop this leak, and make sure no other rigs were being operated dangerously.
rdubnpk If you mean by the phrase "attacking Bush" that anyone in their right mind realizes that most of the problems Obama faced when taking office were, at least in substantial part, created by the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress, then the attacks are more than justifiable. The question is, do we approve of how he is handling the problems and the majority of us do not.
Style vs Substance There are two areas in which the President has succeeded where others have failed: he has gotten Russia and China on board to implement tough new UN sanctions against those who deal with Iran, in areas critical to their developing nuclear weapons, potentially helping to slow their progress; and, he's gotten the Chinese to agree to a limited "float" of their currency, both of which were sought, unsuccessfully, in the recent past, by other leaders. Whether you think either of these strategies is worth pursuing, both required getting the co-operation of other, important players- not easily persuaded to act in any way they perceive as being against their interests. The only way you get that is by building a relationship that includes respect and a willingness to understand the other party's concerns, and interests; then, try to work with them to reach agreements meaningful to all sides. While far more complicated than a "go-it-alone" approach, it is much more likely to produce the result required in a time when solutions to the problems the U.S. and the world now face are as elusive as they are; and, our resources to deal with them as limited as they now are after years of war, and with a crippled economy. ________________ The problems faced by the U.S. internally are just as difficult of solution as those abroad, and it's just as hard to reach agreement on the nature of the problems, and the appropriate solution to those identified: whether to continue to extend unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed, victims of the market mayhem of the last decade, is an example. Those who lose the benefits will not be able to find a job just because their benefits have been cut off; the contribution they make to the economy when they spend those benefits will be lost and, in many cases, if they've been able to keep their mortgages current, they will no longer be able to. Will ideologies and political sloganeering continue to dominate this very practical issue, as it has to this point, preventing passage of an extension of these benefits? New home sales hit a record low, last month- record in the sense that they've never been so slow since records began to be kept in 1963, and there continue to be signs the U.S. economy may be slipping back into recession. Refusing to extend unemployment benefits will just add to the many drags on the economy that are already in place, with little that can be done about them: unemployment benefits are at least one we have direct control over. Many of those most loudly opposing this and other spending that directly stimulate the economy now object, saying it will add to the deficit. Where were these same voices when, in better economic times, they repeatedly voted for record deficit spending and tax cuts, saying it would "stimulate" the economy, and "add jobs"? _________________
rdubnpk Just as I suspected, there is not a single woman involved in this thread. Hasta la vista, guys. I've got to follow the boobs.:aktion069:
I've really enjoyed this thread alot of good opinions expressed with substance. Also, I have to say Amen to the career polititians comment. In my opinion we should have a term on congress just as we do with other political offices. I also believe the two party system is broken and needs to be done away with. The best way to provoke a change in American politics would be for each and every voter to actually research and know who and what they are voting for. There are way too many people who vote for who they like on TV but truely don't know the candidates politics. I would love to have each and every person write a statement exactly why they voted for who they voted for. This would really turn some heads. (However, I'm not saying we should make this part of the ballot. I just think it would be entertaining to read some of the responses.)
They need to do away with the "D" or "R" next to every candidates name on the ballots.. I'd bet upwards of 80% of voters just go down and check every "R" or "D" they see without a clue as to who the people are or even what they are running for..... its really shameful when you think about it... they should at least bother to learn the names of the people on their parties' ticket...
As one of the few Canadians that liked Bush just for the sole reason that he had the balls to do what he knew wouldn't be popular, I can say I like Obama for completely different reasons. Where Bush was the defender, Obama is the healer. He wants to make changes to make the US and the world better. I really believe this. Bush's time in office was shaped by 9/11 more than everything else combined. So far Obama time has been spent taking care of things that he campaigned for. For better or for worse, healthcare reform is going to be his mark on history.
From our standpoint Obama is just the opposite. He is a novice administrator who has no clue about the nation or how those of us who actually work for a living have to function. He insists on spending money we don't have to buy votes to keep him and his cronies in office. He is a product of one of the most corrupt political machines in the entire nation and he continues with his back door antics. As for his healing, we see his healing as being more of a groveling before the world. His apologies to the Islamic world was an obscenity. If anyone should apologize it is a so called religion that would condone the stoning to death of teenage girl who was raped and then get upset over a cartoon. Obama has continued the fracturing of this nation with his mass socailization schemes. All we can do is look forward to 2012 and what should be an exodus of the spend thrift president with his corrupt cronies.
I'd have to say that this is still the prevailing opinion of Obama in Europe and Canada. Unfortunately, this view is without substance and there is no evidence that Obama has healed anything. In fact, despite his highly polished teleprompter speeches and political rhetoric, little has changed. There is no end in-sight or resolution for 2 wars in the Middle East AND recent events in news concerning race relations have gotten worse, not better.
