tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
As far as Obama the man goes, I think he's a decent guy. I think I wouldn't mind having him as a neighbor, as a friend, and honestly don't mind him that much as a president. He does however, come across as ineffective and weak. You point to the right of the aisle to highlight that and I'll grant you, if he has demonstrated anything, it is that he has three distinct ogres sitting on his back.
He can be pushed and he will eventually give in. To me that comes across as a man who is driven by those around him more so than one who believes in what he's doing. It makes listening to him an exercise in knowing what those around him really want.
The second is that he comes across as weak tactically, to put it in military terms, and it's not just dealing with the right that underscores it. Strategically, he's good. Tactically he's not. What I mean by that is if a decision has been vetted through enough circles,and enough focus groups, he's willing to make it his decision. The times he needs to make one quickly however, he comes across as anything but decisive. Maybe that's the great appeaser at work. Maybe it's just true that he has a hard time making decisions without shopping the idea around enough to know whether it's good or not. I don't know.
A lot of people hated Bush for making snap decisions and standing by them. We traded him for someone who seems incapable of making one, but who leads by committee instead. Therein lies the third ogre. I think Obama is an idealist. I think he comes to play with a sheaf of rules by which he assumes everyone else will play. Aside from the fact the right isn't going to play along with him on his terms, the committee's he surrounds himself with have generated several embarrassments, and are in many cases, some of those most despised by the right. So while Obama may in fact be the Great Appeaser, he surrounds himself with those who are not.
A good bit of ridicule that comes his way, comes by nature of the office. Look back and find a president who wasn't ridiculed, who didn't have vocal critics, who wasn't smeared by the opposition and you're probably back somewhere around George Washington. Some of it is warranted. Some is not. Some you just live with because it is the nature of the beast.
Nor can you blame one party for the financial mess the country is in. Attempting to is insisting on being factually incorrect. For every item you can post, someone else can post an opposite. That too comes from the nature of the beast where politicos do what they do with an eye more toward election cycles and maintaining power than they do of actually governing.
What I will say though is that in the past 12 years, the divide between sides seems to have grown wider and deeper, to the point that I don't think any president is going to have an easy ride. Liberals and independents both rallied around Obama in the first election. Independents looked at the moderate tone he brought with him. Liberals well, had lots to rally around, a big part of it being A) he's not Bush, B) he's a democrat, and C) three of the four branches of power. (Yes, I know there are technically three in executive, legislative and judicial, but the legislative branch is essentially two branches in itself.)
Option C above held great promise. Liberals spent 8 years under Bush being sidelined. Grabbing enough power to not only force legislation through on their agenda was good, but that fact also held the greater promise of being able to seed the high court with individuals more attuned to their cause(s).
The debt ceiling.... is as much of a democratic failure as was a republican. It doesn't take being a rocket scientist. Matter of fact, I told someone here last year what the new crop of republican's would do and that was what they were elected to do. The question came back, what about compromise?
Seriously? After democrats shoved the healthcare bill through before they could be voted out? That set the stage for a crop of newcomers to be willing and able to stand their ground. Obama should have known that, and in fact, I think he did. When it comes to brinkmanship, much of it appears to be manufactured for political purposes. I think everyone was looking at political points to be made and lost. I think that's why we ended up at the last minute. You can argue if you want, but hell, I'm either the new Oracle at predicting what they'd do, or there are a lot of blind folks out there.
I think where republicans are hurting themselves most is with the tax issue. Dems are successfully, and rightfully pointing out that stealing from grandpa while letting the job makers enjoy more of their money, just ain't cool. What neither side is saying is another truth in the mix, that both parties have fed from the trough of Social Security over the years, robbing it and the futures of those who paid into it.
I think Obama wants to be a middle of the road guy. I think he will never have the chance to be as neither side will give it to him. Hate Bush all you want, but he had that ability to say, ok, fine, you hate me. I'll do what I think is right anyway.
I also think as heated as the rhetoric around Obama is, that directed towards his opponents is as heated, and more vile.
Bottom line is the right can't stand the left and left can't stand the right. The war is trying to get enough people in power to force agendas on the other side - and that is not a solution for the future, nor for a Union.
Well written!
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: Obama's Failed Administration - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread