Being President/ Presidential (opinion piece)

[Jen]

This election should be about policy. The divide between the Republicans is now evident whereas in the recent past, there has been little difference between the parties. Democrats = big government with broad public benefits; Republicans = strong businesses with government hands off.

The differences are stark enough between those ways of thinking that it should be easy to find a Republican candidate that supports the conservative agenda. But that is not what we need at this point.

Nope. What we need is someone who knows how to be a President. The President we have now doesn't have the foggiest clue of how to do that. He pretends to "lead from behind", but it turns out that he's not behind leading, he's behind ........playing golf.

A President must be authoritative. Obama is not that. He can make a solid statement, but he has never yet backed up any of his statements with action that involved anything but packing on our debt. He has not moved from campaign mode since he moved into the White House. Every speech comes across as another campaign and every action has "next election" in mind.

At this point, we cannot afford to look at how liberal or conservative a candidate is. We're pushed into the corner of having to look for someone who is a leader. We have gone 3 years without firm leadership. That's what we need now. An authoritative President who can put aside partisanship, not look at his next election and just put the country first. We need a leader.

 

[GordonGecko]

Sorry...who wrote this, Jen?

 

[Jen]

I did.

 

[middleview]

Obama has shown leadership. Unfortunately the republicans have chosen to work to the benefit of the RNC and that is the source of the problem.....you seem to think that there is some leadership technique he could have used that would have forced the republicans to comply. There isn't. It is a free country and barring the imposition of martial law, the president cannot force children to be adults.....Your post shows you have fallen for the republican tactic....to make you think all they are waiting for is "firm leadership" to do the right thing....

 

[Jen]

I have not seen Obama show leadership qualities. Many people have not seen that. Is it a majority? We'll see. But we cannot force the President to be an adult if he doesn't have the mindset to do it.

Obama has shown leadership. Unfortunately the republicans have chosen to work to the benefit of the RNC and that is the source of the problem.....you seem to think that there is some leadership technique he could have used that would have forced the republicans to comply. There isn't. It is a free country and barring the imposition of martial law, the president cannot force children to be adults.....Your post shows you have fallen for the republican tactic....to make you think all they are waiting for is "firm leadership" to do the right thing....

 

[middleview]

I have not seen Obama show leadership qualities. Many people have not seen that. Is it a majority? We'll see. But we cannot force the President to be an adult if he doesn't have the mindset to do it.

What "leadership" qualities did Bush exhibit? Boehner, Cantor and McConnell, the "leadership" of the republican party have shown that there was nothing, short of martial law, that would have forced them to cooperate. That is why the majority of the voters blame the republicans for the lack of progress in creating jobs. Cantor says he has jobs bills that the house has passed but the dems in the senate are holding up. Have you looked at the crap they call "jobs" bills? Nah....

Jen, you are one of the more partisan and anti-Obama right wingers on PJ. Why pretend otherwise? Obama has been the adult in the room. Boehner ran away from the debt ceiling negotians because he sniffed that Obama had moved the goal posts. Have you ever been part of a negotiation? Moving the goal posts is what it is all about. We have republicans in a joint session calling the president a liar. You think that happened because Obama is not a leader? We have republicans saying there are "death panels" in the Health Care Reform Bill....yet you don't seem to mind when the leadership of the RNC lies through their teeth. How do you lead them? The answer is you don't. They weren't interested in anything that might help Obama look good and that means anything that might have been good for the country.

 

[Jen]

Jen, you are one of the more partisan and anti-Obama right wingers on PJ. Why pretend otherwise?

Who is pretending otherwise? I've never claimed I wasn't partisan or anti-Obama. I am both of those things.
Where have you been?

I stand by what I've said and your bleating doesn't change the fact that Obama lacks leadership qualities.

What "leadership" qualities did Bush exhibit? Boehner, Cantor and McConnell, the "leadership" of the republican party have shown that there was nothing, short of martial law, that would have forced them to cooperate. That is why the majority of the voters blame the republicans for the lack of progress in creating jobs. Cantor says he has jobs bills that the house has passed but the dems in the senate are holding up. Have you looked at the crap they call "jobs" bills? Nah....

Jen, you are one of the more partisan and anti-Obama right wingers on PJ. Why pretend otherwise? Obama has been the adult in the room. Boehner ran away from the debt ceiling negotians because he sniffed that Obama had moved the goal posts. Have you ever been part of a negotiation? Moving the goal posts is what it is all about. We have republicans in a joint session calling the president a liar. You think that happened because Obama is not a leader? We have republicans saying there are "death panels" in the Health Care Reform Bill....yet you don't seem to mind when the leadership of the RNC lies through their teeth. How do you lead them? The answer is you don't. They weren't interested in anything that might help Obama look good and that means anything that might have been good for the country.

 

[Friday13]

I stand by what I've said and your bleating doesn't change the fact that Obama lacks leadership qualities.

That's not a "fact", Jen, it's your opinion. Others strongly disagree with it.

 

[Jen]

And I suppose you are prepared to say Obama is a great leader?
Really?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's not a "fact", Jen, it's your opinion. Others strongly disagree with it.

 

[Zam-Zam]

My two cents:

Obama has done some things well and deserves some credit for that. he has kept this country safe, and he has killed a lot of bad guys. His weakness obviously has been the economy. He inherited a troubled economy, but it has gotten worse on his watch. To say it's all someone else's fault is nonsense put forth by apologist hacks. The buck stops with him, like it or not.

When Ronald Reagan was President, Tip O'Neil and the Democrats ran Congress. President Reagan worked with them to achieve much of his agenda. When Bill Clinton was President, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans ran Congress. President Clinton worked with them to achieve much of his agenda. That is leadership, that is Presidential. Our current President finds himself in the same predicament, but complains he can't get anything done and it's all Congress's fault. That is the exact opposite of leadership. Perhaps it is his lack of experience catching up with him, but he needs to grow out of it now and figure out a way to work with the opposition party. Failure to do so will be bad for the country and ultimately bad for barack Obama.

I realize this will, anger the partisans who believe nothing is ever Obama's fault. I'm fine with that.

 

[Judy1]

So, for arguments sake, lets say that a republican got elected President in 2012, and that the House and the Senate end up with a very slim dem majority. And let's say that a Dem Congress decide to stonewall the republican president, and don't get anything done as a result, and bad things happen. How would your republican president be able to demonstrate leadership?

 

[Friday13]

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? You said he "lacks leadership qualities"...I said many disagree with you. You stated that your post is "an opinion piece", and you stated your OPINION. Your opinions do not equal facts, and others' opinions are as valid as yours...as opinions.

Not the response you were looking for? Too bad.

 

[Friday13]

A very good question, Judy. Can't wait to see the answers.

 

[888888]

This election should be about policy. The divide between the Republicans is now evident whereas in the recent past, there has been little difference between the parties. Democrats = big government with broad public benefits; Republicans = strong businesses with government hands off.

The differences are stark enough between those ways of thinking that it should be easy to find a Republican candidate that supports the conservative agenda. But that is not what we need at this point.

Nope. What we need is someone who knows how to be a President. The President we have now doesn't have the foggiest clue of how to do that. He pretends to "lead from behind", but it turns out that he's not behind leading, he's behind ........playing golf.

A President must be authoritative. Obama is not that. He can make a solid statement, but he has never yet backed up any of his statements with action that involved anything but packing on our debt. He has not moved from campaign mode since he moved into the White House. Every speech comes across as another campaign and every action has "next election" in mind.

At this point, we cannot afford to look at how liberal or conservative a candidate is. We're pushed into the corner of having to look for someone who is a leader. We have gone 3 years without firm leadership. That's what we need now. An authoritative President who can put aside partisanship, not look at his next election and just put the country first. We need a leader.

Jen are you for real? What do you think a president can do without some support from congress? Everything that he has gotten done since the Affordable health care bill, has come with a price. Not having the backers to push through anything, and having rules where a minority of senators can end or stall anything he wishes to do, what could he have done different?

Please fill me and the rest of us in on what he could have done or should have done differently? Do you have any idea on how govt works?
Please JEN tell us what he should have done, just did what the republicans wanted him to do?

 

[Zam-Zam]

So, for arguments sake, lets say that a republican got elected President in 2012, and that the House and the Senate end up with a very slim dem majority. And let's say that a Dem Congress decide to stonewall the republican president, and don't get anything done as a result, and bad things happen. How would your republican president be able to demonstrate leadership?


The same way Reagan and Clinton did; you make deals. Washington D.C is all about making deals and bargaining, and all the skilled politicians know that. They also know they won't get everything they want, but they can get some of what they want if they're willing to give up something. Whoever is in charge of the Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, will want something. You figure out what it is and make a deal you can live with. Reagan knew it. Clinton knew it. Obama hasn't figured it out yet. And that's on him and no one else.

Never listen to people who say it can't be done. What they're really saying is it can't be done by them.

 

[Judy1]

My two cents:

Obama has done some things well and deserves some credit for that. he has kept this country safe, and he has killed a lot of bad guys. His weakness obviously has been the economy. He inherited a troubled economy, but it has gotten worse on his watch. To say it's all someone else's fault is nonsense put forth by apologist hacks. The buck stops with him, like it or not.

When Ronald Reagan was President, Tip O'Neil and the Democrats ran Congress. President Reagan worked with them to achieve much of his agenda. When Bill Clinton was President, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans ran Congress. President Clinton worked with them to achieve much of his agenda. That is leadership, that is Presidential. Our current President finds himself in the same predicament, but complains he can't get anything done and it's all Congress's fault. That is the exact opposite of leadership. Perhaps it is his lack of experience catching up with him, but he needs to grow out of it now and figure out a way to work with the opposition party. Failure to do so will be bad for the country and ultimately bad for barack Obama.

I realize this will, anger the partisans who believe nothing is ever Obama's fault. I'm fine with that.

The difference, Mr. Zam, is that the Dem Congress, while they may not have agreed with the Reagan, respected him as president and they all worked thru their difference and found compromise. Same with Clinton and the Republican COngress. This time around, The pubs are determined to make sure Obama fails at any cost.

 

[888888]

I keep hearing that we should redo the tax code, got any ideas on what we should do? Got any reason why it wasn't done under BUSH?
The truth is Obama's support is not what the numbers show, as many Southern Democrats are not much more than republicans with a little mix of Liberial ideas on moral issues.

And as Judy says above, if the senate and the House are even and all one senator has to do is say no and you need 60 votes to get anything done, will it be the republican presidents fault for them just saying NO, like the the republicans have done to Obama.

 

[Sodak]

No.....let's say that a Dem president is facing a Pub Congress, for arguments sake. A good leader leads, when he has no other choice, by working with the opposition.

Just as Bill Clinton did when he accomplished so much while working with Gingrich and the Pubs.

Bill Clinton was a leader. Obama is not and never has been. Obama can't even seem to work with the leaders of his own party.

You play with the hand you're dealt....not the hand you wish you were dealt. And certainly not by constantly making excuses blaming the dealer.

 

[Zam-Zam]

The difference, Mr. Zam, is that the Dem Congress, while they may not have agreed with the Reagan, respected him as president and they all worked thru their difference and found compromise. Same with Clinton and the Republican COngress. This time around, The pubs are determined to make sure Obama fails at any cost.

That's a weak argument at best. All you're saying is that one party hopes the other party fails, and that's always been the case. Any politician worth his salt still finds a way to get things done. The ones who can't make excuses instead.

Obama is the President. Not Boehner. Not the Tea Party. Not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or any other scapegoat. If Obama fails, it's Obama's failure. It goes with the job.

 

[Judy1]

So, for arguments sake, lets say that a republican got elected President in 2012, and that the House and the Senate end up with a very slim dem majority. And let's say that a Dem Congress decide to stonewall the republican president, and don't get anything done as a result, and bad things happen. How would your republican president be able to demonstrate leadership?


The same way Reagan and Clinton did; you make deals. Washington D.C is all about making deals and bargaining, and all the skilled politicians know that. They also know they won't get everything they want, but they can get some of what they want if they're willing to give up something. Whoever is in charge of the Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, will want something. You figure out what it is and make a deal you can live with. Reagan knew it. Clinton knew it. Obama hasn't figured it out yet. And that's on him and no one else.

Never listen to people who say it can't be done. What they're really saying is it can't be done by them.

Obama was willing to give away and did give away far more than most dems would ever have thought possible, and still republicans said no. It was Republcans would wouldn't make the deals. Republicons in Congress let their disrespect be know from the very beginning. I wonder why they disrespected him from the very beginning? Was it because he is a democrat? based on past history with the examples you've stated (Reagan and Clinton) one would think not...hmmmm, wonder what's different this time around?