Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals: Can you be objective and concede at the very least Obama is not a good leader?
Conservatives: We shouldn't gloat about Obama being a failure this is not a game. Our country's future is too important for these petty squabbles. Obama maybe a failure but let's maintain our respect for the office and muster some for the man himself.
Liberals: Can you be objective and concede at the very least Obama is not a good leader?
Conservatives: We shouldn't gloat about Obama being a failure this is not a game. Our country's future is too important for these petty squabbles. Obama maybe a failure but let's maintain our respect for the office and muster some for the man himself.
Obama doesn't swagger and isn't unnecessarily loquacious nor does he show naked pugnacity.
Unfortunately, when this is the case, people mistake it for weakness.
I don't.
It brings to mind the Deep Sea Horizon disaster. People said he wasn't getting "mad" enough. Well, he's not gonna go on TV and jump up and down like a monkey, as the previous president did. He doesn't wear a cowboy hat. None of this implies weakness.
It brings to mind the Deep Sea Horizon disaster. People said he wasn't getting "mad" enough. Well, he's not gonna go on TV and jump up and down like a monkey, as the previous president did. He doesn't wear a cowboy hat. None of this implies weakness.
If you want to see a seriously weak leader in DC, check out John Boehner. The man has seen one negotiation after the next blown up by the petulant clowns that he supposedly leads, his second-in-command is about as loyal as Starscream from the Transformers cartoons, he's basically stuck following stuff like the Hastert rule...
Compare to Obama. He managed to get most of his signature bills passed pretty quickly, and he's more or less managed to hold the dems together even when his negotiations lead to something dems don't like, while dealing with an opposition that will oppose their own ideas as soon as he endorses them (eg. The Debt commission, aid for veterans, "Obamacare").
I think he's somewhat weak, yes. But it's hard to be a strong leader when you're having to deal with serious economic problems (regardless of whose "fault" they are) and a Congress that seems hell-bent on opposing every single thing you do. This has been the case at various points in the last three presidencies, and I for one am getting mighty sick of it.
In situations like this a real leader is the strongest. Leaders do not see these as ball and chains or a reason to blame. They step up and create a vision and a plan to overcome. They involve their staff and country so they buy into the plan and execute with one vision.
The debt ceiling was raised a record 18 times during Reagan's 8 years in office.
Indeed. And since we all know Presidents do not raise the debt ceiling, only Congress has that power, we know who was responsible for the excessive spending during the late 1970s and 1980s, it was the very same political party that was responsible for the irrationally excessive spending from 2007 through 2010 - the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party is a mixed bag when it comes to spending. When the GOP controlled Congress from 1995 to 2000, they were indeed very conservative spenders. Of course the GOP controlled Congress during that time was also recipients of the largest retroactive tax increase by the Democrat controlled Congress in 1993. Beginning in 2001 until they lost Congress to the Democrats in 2006, the GOP was spending excessively, like they were 1960s Democrats.
If Boehner, Hastert, and Frist are any example of what the GOP has become, then the GOP is in very serious trouble indeed. They have no idea what makes a conservative.
I will partially agree. I want my presidents to be tested as governors first so the voters can see how they run a state before launching onto a world stage.
Executive experience in running a State is certainly a good criteria, no question about that. I think most Americans agree since the majority of our Presidents throughout history were Governors at one time. Obama is only the second US Senator with no executive experience to become President.
I would also like to have a presidential candidate who has served honorably, on active duty, in the military (which includes the National Guard). I do not care if they have actually seen combat or not, I just would like to have a President who understands the military and military life. Foreign policy experience is also high on my list of criteria for a presidential candidate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can most of us agree that Obama is a weak leader?
We can all honestly agree on this
