“The fact that the president is on vacation is a factor, but its not nearly as big a factor as any of those things. Because even though President Obama was on vacation with his family in Honolulu, he was still the president of the United States. And on Martha’s Vineyard the past few weeks, he was still president of the United States. Forget those who say there was too much going on this August: When you have a job that intense, there’s never an ideal time to be off the clock, yet you need to recharge just like everybody else does.” — Leftist Bill Burton, executive vice president at Global Strategy Group and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress
When you’re right, you’re right… and I (facetiously) agree with Bill on this one.
The problem isn’t that President Obama is in fact often vacationing and/or golfing so much; but rather that no matter where he is or what he is doing “he was still president of the United States.” Obama is an inept, unengaged boob. Obama will be an inept, unengaged boob whether he’s putting around in a golf cart, sitting in the oval office, taking selfies at funerals, walking his poodle, apologizing on behalf of America to Muslims, surrendering Iraq, or letting Putin bend him over a table.
The key fact of Obama being a boob is not going to change, thus the only relief in sight is changing the fact that this boob holds the office of the presidency. With two years left, it’s going to get worse before it gets any better.
And yet, he’s still not up to half of the last boob’s vacation days (381) or vacation trips (58).
I agree that it doesn’t matter in either case. In terms of national leadership, our 21st century presidents have been poor, no matter where they “officed.” (God, I hate that word.)
That said, I don’t really think you want a hard-working liberal president, do you? The last one we had created the WPA and Social Security. 🙂
>> And yet, he’s still not up to half of the last boob’s vacation days (381) or vacation trips (58). I agree that it doesn’t matter in either case. In terms of national leadership, our 21st century presidents have been poor, no matter where they “officed.” (God, I hate that word.)
Sure… I’m totally serious when I say it matters little in this day and age where the President is (assuming it’s in the U.S). Thus the problems we face arise from something else; a lack of two thing actually;
1) A sense of social presidential appropriateness concerning what one does or doesn’t do
2) A command of basic competence
Bush (a mediocre President) may not have been perfect in either regard. Obama is COMPLETELY lacking in both. That is my premise. And he will be lacking if he does something or not, and wherever he does or doesn’t do it.
>> That said, I don’t really think you want a hard-working liberal president, do you?
I wouldn’t say that, I don’t want a successful liberal president on liberal issues. Checks and balances (if not circumvented by an imperial president, and allowed by a wussy Congress) can go a long way in ensuring that.
I DO want a successful and hardworking president (liberal, moderate, or conservative) when it comes to basic national security. I think that is the least we should expect from our President (his primary responsibility). This president, when it comes to foreign policy, fighting terrorists, and securing the border… fails in that regard miserably.
>> The last one we had created the WPA and Social Security. 🙂
Yes, though in his (FDRs) defense, Social Security morphed (as all Government bureaucracies and programs do) beyond the scope than even he imagined.
And… national security wise (see WWII) he was superb. FDR, with the help of the greatest generation defeated the biggest threat to liberty and freedom in that century.
Today, Obama appeases and apologizes to the greatest threats to liberty and freedom in this century. Though he fancies himself an FDR, he barely rates a Jimmy Carter. Obama’s legacy will be that he was one of the worst (as in incompetent) presidents in history on all accounts (social, domestic, fiscal, foreign, defense); once we can set aside the first black president thing.
As a sign of good faith to my black brethren, I say the white community should claim and adopt Barry as one of their own so as to shoulder the stigma and shame that the black community can ill afford right now.
>> “officed”
Is that a word? I’ve never heard of it. Hopefully this means I’m put even more distance between me and corporate America. I’ve been gone five years and am just now barely starting to feel clean again. 🙂
It may please you to learn that even the New York Times thinks Obama needs to stop waffling on foreign policy. So yeah, we agree on that.
On reflection, I like Bush more now than I did when he was in office. I still think he was in way over his head, and let jackasses like Rumsfeld run too loose on the leash, but he had good intentions.
>> It may please you to learn that even the New York Times thinks Obama needs to stop waffling on foreign policy. So yeah, we agree on that.
Meh… It’s the New York Times…
Leftists pointing out the obvious waffling incompetence is just a sign of frustration. I instead contemplate the howls of indignation that would be coming from the likes of the NYT if the country were in this bad of shape under a Republican; thus the realization that their reaction to Obama is “tepid” at best.
>> On reflection, I like Bush more now than I did when he was in office.
Bush was a mediocre President (about what I would expect Hillary to be.) He did a good job on 911; not so well on the economy (by not reigning in the Democrats who created the housing bubble). Good in foreign policy (in comparison to Obama). Meh or domestic policy…
>> I still think he was in way over his head… but he had good intentions.
Intentions… sure, but I don’t see it (in over his head). Now Obama being in over his head? It’s the very definition of his entire presidency (other than the campaigning aspect of it).
I heard something to this effect on the radio this morning (probably Fox News):
When it comes to relationships with our allies the kind that Reagan had with Thatcher and to a lesser extent Bush with Blair; Obama has built nothing of the kind. Name one ally he has a good relationship with? Now that this kind of leadership would pay dividends, it’s not there. Obama waits until he is thirsty before he begins to dig a well.
Right on the money…
>but I don’t see it (in over his head)
Mostly what I’m thinking of is how he handled Iraq. Letting his team send 100,000 Iraqi soldiers home with machine guns and no job prospects was freaking retarded. We’re still fighting those same guys today (who got recruited by Al Qaeda, which didn’t exist in Iraq before we invaded). We have created our own mess there, and we’ll be paying for it probably for the rest of the 21st century.
Has Obama’s team screwed up, too? Of course. But nothing on the scale of disbanding the Iraqi army like that.
>When it comes to relationships with our allies the kind that Reagan had with Thatcher and to a lesser extent Bush with Blair; Obama has built nothing of the kind.
Reagan and Thatcher were practically twins. Of course they got along. Nobody else got along with them, but they loved each other.
Obama has not been a trailblazer in foreign policy, the way Reagan was.
He’s done well in Asia, which previous Presidents pretty much ignored. He’s done a decent job of protecting American interests, but has not promoted a strong, American exceptionalist tone, which I’m glad for. We don’t need to be Team America. We need to have other countries manage their own affairs, as much as possible.
I don’t think anyone would do well with what’s going on in the Middle East — not even Reagan. It’s a mess, and it’s not like the Soviet Union situation. Whoever comes next is going to stagger through that for their entire 1-2 terms, too. And that’s not all Obama’s fault, or Bush’s. The Arab world is just a mess, period — and a lot of those problems started a century ago, when Britain and other countries drew lines in the sand, inventing “countries” that never existed and could not be maintained without strong dictators (whom we funded and trained, such as Saddam).