Today's politics, OUR contribution, and a Challenge.
I started this post as a reply to Frequent Flyer in another thread.
However, by the time I got to the end, I decided that the message was
off-topic of that thread to I decided to make a new one. Let's see how
many of us are willing to take the challenge and do it seriously.
The original reply was regarding the presidency not being an "entry level position".
Most of the pro-Obama arguments I've seen posted here are that he
follows a liberal or democrat (not the same thing) agenda and that
the poster in question favors that agenda. Rarely do I hear an argument
that he's the most skilled democrat available for the position since he
simply is not. His last budget was voted down 0-414 in the house
(not one vote from either side of the aisle) and also garnered zero votes
in the senate. No matter what you think of his agenda, he is unable
to bring congress on board, an essential skill for the president. Same for
his jobs act, same for everything since the 2010 election. Sure you can
try to blame republicans and in some cases you're right. However,
GREAT presidents rise above this. Reagan and Clinton faced majorities
from the opposing parties in BOTH houses. Yet, by being persuasive
and skillful in dealing with congress, they moved the country forward.
As an American public, we have become really shallow voters. We will
allow a single fact to sink a candidate. As a result, we are drawn to
inexperienced candidates since we are unable to retrieve info from their
past, but able to be swayed by the picture they paint of themselves.
Every person, including a politician, has made mistakes. The best of
us learn from those, and develop a clear vision and a skillset in leading
people toward our vision. However, in the voting booth, we allow
rhetoric to define any politician ONLY by their single mistake. Making every
seasoned and skilled leader un-electable. So we can only vote for people
with so little experience that they are not ready for the presidency. We
gauge them by our perception of their unrealized potential and hope that
they excel in on-the-job-training, or "entry level" as Frequent Flyer put it.
No politician in my lifetime has painted a better picture of themselves than
our current president. But let's face it, he ran for president as a first term
senator, prior community organizer, with his only proven skills being
oratory...with literally NO legislative record of success. He also published a
memoir BEFORE having made any great accomplishments. We all hoped for
the best, but we've found that without a super-majority in the senate and
majority in the house ZERO legislation he proposes gets votes. After that
it is pretty hard to take seriously that he offers anything but a clear vision
that many of us here approve of (and many not).
I believe that if Pres O had spent enough time in the senate to become a
PROVEN and EFFECTIVE [B]legislator[/B], that given the bully pulpit of the white
house he could have steered the country to his agenda rather than become
the president of HYPE and BLAME. Is a sense, his failure is OUR FAULT since
we put a promising politician in power before he had honed ANY skills in
being a chief executive. I know, many disagree with his agenda, but I'm
talking about effectiveness, not policy.
Now I look to the other side. The first thing that pops out to me is that
many Republicans desire EXACTLY THE SAME blank canvas in the current
deliberations for VEEP. Behold the less-than-one-term senator who has
NO MAJOR LEGISLATION as yet to claim as his own, yet has already
published his memoir featuring a look into his ethnic heritage.
(I'm describing Senator Rubio...strikingly similar.) He's also a gifted
speaker with a clear ideology and similar age. WAKE UP! Maybe this guy
might some day have the skills for VEEP or even PRES, but please, please,
please, let him learn to be an effective member of government before
you hand him a top spot.
Worse still, the top of the R-ticket is TRYING TO BE A BLANK SLATE! We
seen more extraordinary events, at a higher level, and with unprecedented
frequency in the past weeks. We have an AG coming up for contempt-of-
congress. We have TWO (count 'em, two) instances where the white house
is publicly choosing to change the law of the land through selective
enforcement of laws. We have invocation of executive privilege on an
investigation of the DOJ. We have the supreme court ruling 3/4 items
in the AZ law unconstitutional. Finally we have a nominee for president
asked to weigh in on these issues and we get...PLATITUDES:
"Um, states should be able to defend their borders."
(non-answer to opinion on ruling)
"I would make a permanent law."
(non-answer to whether the POLICY was sound)
It goes on and on....
Often we blame "today's politics". Study history: slander, distortion, lies,
name-calling, media bias, large money advertising...NONE of these are new.
What's new is that WE THE PEOPLE (ensconced in our electronic echo
chambers) now fall for this crap so thoroughly (even eagerly) that NO ONE
with an actual record or an actual OPINION has a prayer of being elected.
We're careening toward the economic cliff (unbiased CBO statement) and
we've not passed a budget in three years (longest period on history). For
me, the current administration has proven that it can't govern. I believe
this is a reflection of inexperience at governing and its not getting better
with time. The challenger has shown me nothing and is trying to position
himself as a blank slate onto which we can paint a rosey picture. These
afre the people WE (yes, us) put in contention for the highest office in
Try this: Many of us here favor one candidate over the other. Try playing
it in reverse:
[list][*] Construct a serious argument in favor of the candidate you oppose.[*] Construct a serious argument against the candidate you support.[/list]
If you can't accomplish these tasks, then I have news for you. Your opinion
is shallow since no one is a perfecly good or perfectly evil choice for pres.
Barack Obama should be reelected because he can deliver a pretty good speech. He also has proven adept at personally hunting down and killing terrorists. OK well maybe not personally but he does sign off on the kill list every day according to media reports so that's cool. Yes his foreign policy has been weak otherwise and he has embarrassed himself in his dealings with Putin, Netanyahu and Pakistan but at least he has allowed the military to strike at terror targets unimpeded. He reluctantly has gone along with some Iran sanctions so thats good. Also while I acknowledge that his handling of the economy has been awful and has prolinged the recession at least he ok's the targeted killings of terrorists so that makes up for it. Also as a positive he has kept in place most of the anti-terror measures that the Bush Administration put in effect even though he campaigned against most of them. That was a good choice. Also as a positive when Boeing, the greatest American Manufacturer decided to open a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina that added 5000 new direct high paying manufacturing jobs and 10's of thousands of supply line jobs in South Carolina he went after them with the full force of the Federal Government to punish them for choosing to build in a right to work state. While looking back that may seem like an odd fight to pick during the height of a recession in the end he really tought those evil manufacturing firms a lesson. Next time they will think twice before opening a new manufacturing plant in the USA. That is good for our environment as we dont need these manufacturers polluting our air and water. On that same note his consistant anti-domestic drilling policies have stopped the oil companies from drilling on federal lands and exploiting our resources. Thats not great for our economy and the millions of high paying service field jobs would be nice to have but at least the caribu wont have to live near smelly oil and gas rigs. Also we still may be getting some green jobs down the road. Now I know he his administration has been leaking national security secrets like a sieve but so what. Those CIA assets had outlived their usefullness and if leaking this stuff to the American Public makes Obama look more competent and helps him get reelected the ends justify the means. Sometimes some folks need to be sacrificed for the greater good. In closing, vote for Barack, he may be a disaster for the economy and deficits and debt and healthcare and illegal immigration and labor laws etc, but he likes to kill terrorists and jobs so one outta two aint bad.
Last edited by chiefst2000; 06-26-2012 at 10:59 AM.
Positive to the candidate I won't vote for (but I did last time):
President Obama did the right thing in pulling out from Iraq. Modern
warfare is often not among nations, but against nebulous entities
(al qaeda) that go into hiding rather than surrender. As a result,
one can't expect a clean withdrawal like WWI or WWII. Instead, you
must call a halt when you enter the period of diminishing returns.
It was time to go and he left. Also, he did make the (easy) decision to act
on the intelligence specifying the location of Bin Laden. He formulated
a bi-partisan commission (Simpson-Bowles) to face the impending budget
disaster (but unfortunately did not back the report). He seems like a good
father, loyal husband, and nice guy.
Negative to the candidate I will vote for:
Mitt Romney can't be defined because he is listening to handlers instead
of speaking to the people. Although he was among the leaders of a
successful company no evidence has ever been shown about his personal
contribution to that success. As a one term governor, he did balance the
budget (in a state that requires this) and implemented a health care
proposal whose basic premise he now runs from. In the face of momentous
political events surrounding the incumbent, he wimpers no louder than
a wounded puppy. Just like the prior president, we still sniff at his every
clue (WHO DID HE SELECT FOR THE TRANSITION TEAM?), just to
find out any one fact about the candidate who cannot deliver a specific
message using boat-loads of funding.
Obama is incredibly articulate, and can make a very convincing argument for his agenda. He sounds calm, and confident, his posture and demeanor represent the USA well in foreign policy and negotiations. He's fairly consistent with his positions, and at this point, you know what you're getting if you put him back in office. He's willing to back policy he believe in (healthcare reform) even when it's not politically beneficial to do so. For that reason i believe it's fair to say he operates in a more principled way than most politicians do, whether you believe in those principles or not.
Romney refuses to speak to issues where his party's position is unpopular with the nation. While all politicians attempt to direct attention to the issues where their views most align with the voters, Romney does this to such an extreme it's unusually transparent and makes him look weak and fake. Romney's position on healthcare reform is extremely weak. There are very few voters who don't want Obamacare, but would welcome a similar system in their state. Romney's greatest asset ought to be his business acumen yet, in a federal government that spends over half the money it collects on entitlements, one wonders if Romney will be willing to make the tough, unpopular choices necessary to affect any real change.
*I'm cheating as I'm not sure I've entirely convinced myself to vote for Romney yet. I'm very disappointed in the republican offering this year.
Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member
State Location Here
Post Thanks / Like
[QUOTE=GreenGeek;4501404]Did it work any better? :([/QUOTE]
Well, it was actually a bit different. We were all supposed to post as our polar opposites all day....it worked until around lunchtime if I recall correctly...then some posters saw that there were others on the "other" side doing a pretty spot on job of mimicking them, and then panties got bunched, and then I went to McFaddens for a liquid lunch, and then I forget what happened. I'm pretty sure it all melted down like a candy bar left on a dashboard in August.
[QUOTE=shakin318;4501626]Well, it was actually a bit different. We were all supposed to post as our polar opposites all day....it worked until around lunchtime if I recall correctly...then some posters saw that there were others on the "other" side doing a pretty spot on job of mimicking them, and then panties got bunched, and then I went to McFaddens for a liquid lunch, and then I forget what happened. I'm pretty sure it all melted down like a candy bar left on a dashboard in August.[/QUOTE]
So you're sayin'
End result = warm brown smelly oozing left in your car.
I'm hoping for better and we have a few good posts.
We'll count how many are willing to entertain the opposing opinion!
President Obama is certainly cool, calm and collected. He understands his base very well and is proficient at framing his words so it is obvious when they are meant to enflame (Trayvon Martin), produce gratitude (Hispanics), or even scorn for an opponent (Bain).
Obama quickly recognized the centuries-long head start that white males have enjoyed and has taken a Harrision Bergeron-type approach to level the playing field. No one can argue that he has championed fairness for minorities, women and the poor. Give him credit, he has been as blatant as a Halliburton no-bid contract. I believe his administration would call that transparency.
Away from the Oval Office, Obama appears to be a dedicated family man. He has established quiet a reputation as a singer, stand up comic and basketball player. One could argue that he is the "coolest" president this country has had.