What is YOUR analysis, opinion, and synopsis of President Barack Obama
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that President Obama has lost what respect he had as a President? What is YOUR opinion regarding the current political climate in the United States?I just wonder why his hair is turning so gray.
He is very immature, confused, judgemental, bullying, a "great" Instigator, a "great" Misleader of those who refuse to think for themselves, a mediocre speaker, average intelligence, above-average in narcissism and manipulative skills.
Reckon that tells ya my analysis.While I think your analysis is a bit hyperbolic (and is only going to get people all riled up), I do think your analysis has some merit.
My sense, as a historian, is that Obama is a president much like Woodrow Wilson.
In other words, a relentless inability to engage the political opposition and the American people in a meaningful and productive dialogue is contributing to a polarization of politics; a polarization of Washington, DC and the country along rhetorical and ideological lines.
That polarization coupled with a collection of advisers who are either (a) left out of the loop or (b) controlling the loop is leading, it seems, to missteps and indecision; to confusion and conflict.
All of that said, I think former VP Dick Cheney got it right when he described the Obama Administration as "dithering". Historians may remember Obama, as they do Herbert Hoover---as the great ditherer in chief.
Obama has failed in what he claimed he was going to do. He won't take responsibility for anything, and he pretends that reality isn't even happening. People write him letters talking about how they lose their jobs or healthcare or hours because of the ACA, and then he goes on TV and says that the ACA isn't hurting any jobs.
I pretty much don't care for any of our leaders. They fight like little children, they bicker over how to screw over the American people best, while exempting themselves from the laws they pass, and their answer to everything is more government, more regulations, more taxes, more rules, more red tape.
There are a few exceptions, but not enough for it to matter.+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!.
It should be obvious that The Affordable Care Act will be the signature domestic achievement of the Obama Administration and the Tea Party---which was formed in direct response to Obama's election, just cannot accept that President Obama did what presidents having been trying to do since Theodore Roosevelt proposed a national health insurance program in around 1901: Reform access to health insurance coverage in a way that gets health insurance to America's working poor and middle-class, and in the process, expands access to health care.
Yup, everyone will know that Obama is responsible for Obamacare.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world … rynews.com
"Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four."
It was only 9 days into his presidency when Bill O'Reilly began calling his policies failures. 9 days. Pretty much Obama has served as President with an unprecedented amount of venom directed at him by the opposition party. It's awfully hard to serve effectively when that is the case. The Republicans have never given him a chance. Never. They have never negotiated with him or treated him with any respect at all. They have hated him from the second he got into office. This is the political climate in our country. I suspect that when a Republican gains the presidency, Democrats will do a similar thing. One of the parties is going to have to step up and start working with the other.
Democrats love to claim that the POTUS has had an unprecedented level of criticism leveled at him from republicans. In reality, it's just politics as usual. Being the president is difficult, President Obama has failed in his position, and democrats are looking for excuses.
Every time we turn around, democrats are claiming that the opposition in Congress is making things difficult. Yeah, that's what the opposition does; it's what the opposition has always done. Plenty of examples can support this reality. The difference is that President Obama isn't able to sway the opposition like previous presidents. Democrats like to say that the republicans aren't compromising. The reality is that our leader isn't leading, and consequently, he hasn't been able to sway republicans to vote as he would wish. This is a leadership issue, not an issue of obstinacy.
Every time we turn around, democrats are claiming that the opposition has been too critical of President Obama. Yeah, they weren't critical of George Bush, not at all. Didn't Keith Olberman call Bush a fascist and a murderer? That's not harsh, not at all. Do you remember when so many democrats said that Bush wasn't their president? Plenty of harsh examples exist.
Every time we turn around, democrats are claiming that the opposition has been concocting phony scandals. Google "George Bush scandals," and you'll find at least twenty different "scandals" that the democrats pounced on during Bush's presidency. Give me a break. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Either way, Obama supporters need to stop making excuses.Great responses ALL, continue the discussion.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000-they had better WAKE UP and realize that President Obama has not been the best representative for Democrats and Liberals. He is a trainwreck in progress. Smart Democrats and Liberals, like me, are gradually distancing themselves from Obama because of his extreme and unworkable policies.
I totally disagree.
Obama was easily recognizeable as a pusher of policy failure early on, so kudos to O'Reilly AND to even little peons like me who could recognize it. Anyone should be able to recognize it.
This isn't a failure of the Parties to work together! It's a failure of the Democrat Party to have ever let a Leftist into their Party and a foolishly mean politically-motivated decision to nominate him for the Presidency. Everyone on both sides are stuck in one way or another simply because of one thing---------the color of the man's skin! Seriously. Everyone who could've made a difference has been way too nervous to oppose him because he's black. What a crock of fools we have in this Country, to be held hostage basically because of someone's skin color.
Me personally, I agree I didn't give Obama much of a chance. But indeed, any person who stands up in public and says if his daughters were to make a mistake, he wouldn't want them punished with a baby......doesn't warrant a chance, because he's so obviously foolish and lacking in common integrity, not to mention so starkly lacking in Constitutional knowledge.
This Nation, and the Office of the Presidency, isn't something to experiment with. It's something that should be maintained, its Constitution upheld, defended from enemies both foreign and domestic, and should never be lent to such a wavering hand and unstable mentality.Just when I thought you'd posted the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the HP forums, you go and top yourself, just to prove that it could, indeed, be done. It's completely obvious the Republicans are being obstructionists, and it's completely obvious that Obama (the alleged Leftist) has done more to benefit the country than Bush (the completely obvious Rightist) ever has. Nothing in your post contains any amount of truth, but the quoted portion is perhaps some of the most heinously inane drivel I've ever laid eyes on.
With all due respect, your post is total opinion.
Both parties are obstructionists. All of Washington is an obstructionist.
To claim that republicans are treating the POTUS any differently than democrats treated Bush is absurd. The POTUS is more liberal than Bush was conservative. Of course republicans are going to try to stop his liberal agenda. That's how politics are played and have been played for many, many years. Both sides play the same game.I just now saw this.
Wow.
I had been under the impression that you had a fair amount of manners. But then, I'm tolerant that way, to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But hey you just cut down on the chances of that.
Best wishes, Ms. Durham. How are you doing these days?
I thought this might be a good time to remind folks that President Obama might not be President today if the Republican Party had not "foolishly nominated" an insensitive candidate who believed …
“I'm not concerned about the very poor.”
“47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people”
“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in."
“I went to a number of women's groups and said 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women.”
"As president, I will create 12 million new jobs." —Mitt Romney, during the second presidential debate…
"Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs." —Mitt Romney, 45 minutes later (Oct. 16, 2012.
“But he [Mitt Romney’s father] was born in Mexico... and had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico.”
“Corporations are people, my friend ... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people.”
“and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open” {1}
{1} http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/mitt … Quotes.htmYou're probably right about the fact that many people voted for President Obama as a way of voting against Mr. Romney. I'm sure Brenda is right about the fact that many people voted for President Obama based on skin color; I'm sure that many people voted for Mr. Romney based on skin color too. To be elected because you are the lesser of two evils, because you have a certain skin color, or because you have written enough checks to garner votes isn't ideal by any means.
It is a matter of culture, not skin color.
Mitt Romney's loss was likely due to 3 million Republican voters who sat on their franchises rather than vote. Their motivations were varied but some have sited Romneycare, his religion, his willingness to flip and flop like a Democrat, etc....
As for "Government creating jobs" - it does not - it reallocates jobs.
As for "corporations are people" - they are indeed, I have worked for a couple and have never seen anything other than people in a corporation whether they be officer, executives, managers, supervisors, customers, vendors, etc...all people and all benefit from corporation as a business model and structure. In fact, so valuable is the corporation as a model it is emulated by the USPS, NPR, PBS, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, etc....
Perhaps it is ignorance on the part of the public, at least in some of these instances, rather than what was said, which is to blame. After all most Americans are educated by the PEOPLE in school CORPORATIONS.Funny. I didn't know Walmart was a person...
Also, this is relevant and hilarious.You can make flip comments and think you are funny, but Romney was right.
Corporations are the people who populate and depend on them.
Was Romney's wording problematic? Of course, as it opened him up to ridicule particularly form those who think society is an entity that exists without people or that systems of any kind are entities that exist without people.
Corporations are the millions of Americans who work for them---at eveyr level, and whose wages and salaries, retirement incomes, pensions, insurance coverage, etc. is inextricably tied to them and to their successes and failures.Walmart is populated with thousands of people - but that point is wasted on a product of corporate education.
So is that why corporations are separate entities from their owners under the tax code?
Lemme know when you go grab a beer with your corporation....For the purposes of taxation and accounting, corporations are entities.
For the purposes of political culture corporations are entities comprised of people.
Whether we like it or not, our legal and taxation systems grant corporations the status of "entity" as separate from their owners.So it is your belief that the tax code defines what is a person? Interesting. That may further complicate the abortion debate.
It appears obvious that your corporate education was incomplete. Perhaps you should sue your incompetent English teachers for not helping you understand "the metaphor," a commonly used literary device.
Leftists like to think of themselves as well educated but it is obvious that they have trouble with simple things like metaphors.I think....
I think its trying to communicate...Is it possible for you (retief2000) to comment without insulting someone; without resorting to the worn-out "you don't agree with me so you are stupid and/or uneducated" crap?
Is it possible for you to comment without slamming people who may achieved some level of higher education or whose politics may be left of center?
Or do you perceive personal insults as empowering?The foolish complaint is about the use of a metaphor, "corporations are people." One who is incapable of understanding the use of metaphors in English is one of three things. One, unfamiliar with English and its uses - clearly this is not the case since we are communicating, more or less, effectively in English. Two, poorly educated - in a nation that readily dispenses free educations from a presumably competent education system, this is inexcusable (unless some real language disability exists - see point one.) And finally, one chooses to ignore the meaning of metaphor because that employed metaphor is inconveniently accurate.
Do you require a tissue?No actually. I am splitting my sides with laughter...
So you're saying that Mitt Romney was merely using a metaphor when he said that corporations are people?
Only Mitt Romney knows what Mitt Romney meant when he said this, but I can say this: I bet he wishes he could take back having said it.
Yes and no......as with all things political, I'm sure he was just saying what he thought his target audience wanted to hear.
Probably...but he like so many politicians forgot that the cameras and cell phones are everywhere and that nothing anyone says is kept "in the room".
He believed what he said and it is true. You just don't get what he said or why it is true.
And for those who suggest that I just "don't get it" or don't get why Romney's statement is true: Based on exactly what factual and specific information about me do you know ("clearly") that I don't get the statement and/or why it is true?
When are some of us going to understand that there is a such a thing in the real world of discussion as disagreement; disagreement based NOT on the fact that one party is uninformed or unintelligent, but simply based on the fact that one party may not agree with another party?
I think President Obama is a great disappointment to many of his constituents.
And presidents who are disappointments tend not to far well during their tenures in office or in history.
If his success was contingent on having 100% of the media serving and praising him, he is indeed a failure. Most of it has been in his camp from the beginning. Blaming his dismal performance on those brave and wise few who opposed him is ludicrous.
Selected not elected preceded GWB's inauguration, endless venom spewed at GWB. I never realized how prescient O'Reilly was about Obama policies.
Exactly. A couple of things to remember:
(1) In American politics---what goes around, comes around. Presuming that a Republican is elected president in the future (perhaps) 2016, a caution to GOP and Tea Party supporters as to what the Democrats will do and how they will conduct themselves. In the words of Al Jolson: "You ain't seen nothing yet."
(2) After the death of FDR---who was elected to an unprecedented 4 terms, the Republicans quickly pushed through the 22nd Amendment which limits presidential terms. And then, Eisenhower was elected---a man who could have easily served many terms in the White House and then Ronald Reagan who even more easily could have remained in the White House for many terms. In fact in 1985 (after Reagan was elected for his second term) Republicans attempted to repeal the amendment. It failed.
(3) And finally, determinations of the success or failure of a presidency are not made before it is over. In fact, determinations of the success or failure of a presidency can only be made when there is time and distance from the presidency. And, determinations of presidential successes and failures are not absolute and not permanent. Presidents are often rethought and reconsidered as time and distance separates public opinion from their presidencies. Presidents once considered successes are now considered failed; presidents considered failed now considered successful.
Then again, none of this matters because since I do not agree with the trending opinion in this forum I am, by default, uninformed and incapable of cogent thought.
^^^^^^^ Now that is hilarious.....and true at the same time.....Thumbs up Zelkiiro.
Ditto what I said to Zelkiiro to you too, "Alphadogg16".
Brenda you are so biased in everything you say, you have a problem with gays, blacks or anyone who doesn't agree with your logic. The color of Obamas skin is irrelevant, at least in my eyes. I wouldn't call his Presidency a success, but it is difficult to fix something that was a mess before you even got it. Your constantly criticizing Obama, but he's done no worse than Bush. It doesn't really matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in office, if the two parties constantly fight each other, things will never get better.
From both of the posts of yours that I've read, including this one, you have no good reason to accuse anyone else including me of being biased! LOL. Re-read your own posts. Take special note of the fact that you're joining in with Zelkiiro in making this a personal thing instead of actually focusing on the Parties and parties involved who are public servants and therefore should lend themselves to scrutiny. And extra special note of the fact that you laughed when someone posted an immature, horribly lacking in basic manners post personally attacking me. Apparently you have no good excuse to say about that, huh? No wonder, because your reasoning for it is invalid, period. So run along now like the immature person you've illustrated and talk to someone who'll put up with your nonsensical rhetoric, okey-dokey? Because I do prefer you not engage me in anymore conversation for a loooonnng while (maybe after you've aged some and gained a bit of wisdom).......got it?
You obviously have some sort of self esteem issue......Nothing was directed towards you..........I was laughing at the picture Zelkiiro posted...it was funny......and the "true and agreement part" was to what he said about Obama doing more for the country than Bush. I was unaware who he was even talking too until you opened your mouth.
Way to go Alpadogg prove Brenda right by starting off your post insulting her with a low self esteem crack.
(Warning: Tissues required.)
Thomas Jefferson:
"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest."
"The will of the majority must always prevail."
"The general (federal) government will tend to monarchy, which will fortify itself from day to day instead of working for its cures."
"What country can preserve its liberties, if their rulers are not warned from time to time..."
"It is the manners and the spirit of the people which preserves a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these (manners and spirit of the people) is a canker which soon eats the heart of its laws and constitution."I think he's done a lot of great stuff, that either his haters don't like to acknowledge or insist on disagreeing with anyway. On the other hand, I've been disappointed to find he's not as liberal as he claimed to be - or years in presidency have mellowed out all the talk about values and idealism. I'm extremely disappointed with, for example, how he's handled Private Manning's case, as well as Edward Snowden's. Not to mention insisting on the war with Syria without looking at alternatives.
The things he hasn't accomplished yet, I don't think we can blame totally - after all, when Republicans veto everything and spend all our tax money trying to stop Obamacare (which, I think, is totally great that finally we're looking at ways to insure the poor) and gay marriage.
I do think he could be the greatest guy ever and Republicans would still find a way to hate him, though, and pretend he's the worst president in our country's history. Granted, Democrats would do the same thing, though let's be real, Bush really was a horrible President. The two party system is destined to fail because people identify with the party more than issues a lot of the time (and I think that's true of many Democrats as well). I wonder if we'd fair better under a Parliament system.
Anyway, Obama's not perfect. I wish he was better in a lot of ways. But overall, I think he's done an all right job - or at least better than the alternative. I'm hoping for Clinton 2016.Because she is not of the republican culture.
What exactly is "Republican culture"?
Is there a unified and national Republican Party in the US today?There was a time when republican was a word of praise used to signify those who believed in freely elected representative government. That ended when the considerably inferior "democrat" was used by people like the racist Woodrow Wilson.
With all due respect, your definition suggests that Republicans hold exclusive claim to a belief in a democratically elected government and that Democrats are racists. That is nonsense and I am confident that you know that and are just seeking to bait people into a Party X is superior/Party Y is inferior debate which in and of itself is meaningless and sophomoric.
If one uses the lower-case term "republican" then one subscribes to a republican or representative form of government. If one uses the lower-case "democrat" then one refers to a government in which the people (or those defined as "the people) engage in free elections to either decide issues or elect representatives.
So, are you referring to "republican culture" as the political culture of the US that evolved after the ratification of the Constitution OR are you referring to "Republican culture" meaning more conservative political and ideological views?
As for the use of the terms Republican and Democrat to connote party affiliation, some history:
Lincoln was the first president elected under the Republican Party ticket.
Franklin Pierce was the first president elected under what we can define as the modern Democratic Party ticket."Republicans hold exclusive claim to a belief in a democratically elected government" - republican, not the obviously misused "Republican" - republican is a political idea. You missed the point.
"and that Democrats are racists" - no I said quite plainly that Woodrow Wilson was a racist, he was.
"democracy" - is an inferior term because it is used inaccurately and confused with elected. Democracy is a system of direct election and the confusion began in the early 20th century with people like the RACIST Woodrow Wilson.
To be fair, the RACIST Andrew Jackson was a republican as was Thomas Jefferson. (NOTE THE LOWER CASE "r")A term is not in and of itself "inferior" because its definition evolves and/or has multiple meanings and applications OR because the use of a term does not meet your standard for use.
Democrat is an inferior term because it is corrupted by misuse.
Brenda, why don't you define "Leftist" for us. I don't think you know what it means. Obama is hardly a Leftist. He's left compared to the politicians you like, but that doesn't make him a Leftist.
Name the last president who was just as liberal. Carter? LBJ? He's clearly left of center. What do you want to call that?
The last president we've ever had who was left of center would probably be FDR.
You're joking, right? LBJ was as liberal as they come. Carter was no centrist. Obama is easily as liberal as LBJ, even more. Yes, FDR was certainly on the left.
Lyndon Johnson was a complicated man with a complicated political sensibility. To suggest that he was a garden-variety liberal is to misunderstand him and his politics. Johnson was certainly progressive in terms of some social issues, but was decidedly conservative in issues related to what we would today call international politics and national security. That said, Johnson was not driven by ideology, but by politics.
As for Carter, again while less complicated than Johnson, is a mix of right-wing and left-wing positions---each more ideologically than politically driven, but each complex making him not easily definable as a liberal.
As for President Obama, again, he is a mix of left-wing and right-wing positions, but it is difficult to discern if these positions are ideologically or politically driven. Only time---distance from his presidency and serious historical and political scholarship will tell.Very little about the political orientations of American presidents is on/off or right/left. Presidential history shows us that most American presidents---if not all, are complex amalgams of politics and ideology.
And as a historian, I agree. The last president definitively at the left-of-center mark was Franklin Roosevelt, but even he is not as "liberal" as his reputation (most of it which hinges on the New Deal) suggests.
Remember, it was FDR whose reactionary response to national security concerns resulted in the internment of Japanese-Americans.That constantly needs to be brought up in conversations about FDR. He was no hero.
Obama is indeed a leftist in that his political and economic beliefs are rooted in the notion that collectivism is superior to individualism, government is the best answer to every problem, that private property must be limited, that any old idea is a bad idea and that the best ideas come from turning established institutions inside out and upside down. He fancies himself a man of the left and has always surrounded himself with leftists. Read his autobiographies and his speeches, he consistently speaks in the language of the left.
leading isn't a easy job. most fall short at the task. Obama is one man. to blame one man for the way things are. or to expect one man to fix everything that is wrong . is naive. just taking the job says something about a man. people that don't care about their country don't run for president .i did not vote for him the first time . but i did the second. why? he impressed me as a man who was gona try like hell to do what he thought was best for our nation. he wont go down as the best. but he certainly wont be the worst either. endeavor to persevere. he might fail but he sure as hell is going to try to succeed.
Good God! You mean you think there's gonna be someone who's a worse President than him? I shudder to think so. I'm gonna try to think positively and hope there's never ever again anyone as bad as him.
We already have had a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical … ey_results
Notable worse presidents include Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, Ulysses Grant, John Tyler, and good ol' George W. Bush.I like how the widely considered 'best' Presidents are the biggest socialist war-mongers, (FDR, Lincoln) and the 'worst' are the ones that largely left people alone, (Tyler, Van Buren), with the exception of George Bush. People most hate him cuz he's stupid.
Do you really think that Lincoln was a "socialist warmonger"? Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of the Lincoln Presidency or the American Civil War?
If yes, explain your position with historical and documentary evidence and fact.
And do you really think that FDR was a "warmonger"?
Again: If yes, explain your position with historical and documentary evidence and fact.
And "most people" do not "hate" George W. Bush in the US. In fact, his current favorable ratings are quite high.
If you knew a little American history, you would understand why presidents such as Tyler and Van Buren (and the others people have listed here) are ranked among the worst of American presidents. And, it has NOTHING to do with whether or not they "left the people alone".There are legitimate questions about Lincoln's positions on Habeas Corpus and Press Freedom that suggest Lincoln did over reach. The Civil War was hardly Lincoln's fault as it had been building since the Constitution was ratified.
As for FDR, he is our worst President despite what liberal academics and the ill informed who lived through the Great Depression and WWII may think. The Great Depression was a direct consequence of FDR's policies which deepened and lengthened what should have been a recession - much as we are currently experiencing. WWII was a series of diplomatic missteps regarding America's relationship with Japan that pushed it into the arms of Hitler and Mussolini.
FDR was hostile to free market economics, much like the current White House occupant. He was easily swayed by the powerful China lobby in Washington. He created the most damaging social program this country ever enacted, because it roped Americans into dependence, Social Security.
Obama is well on his way to eclipsing these "accomplishments" with his massive and haphazard spending policies, stumbling and bumbling foreign policy and his cyclopean, Brobdingnagian, byzantine charlie foxtrot - Obamacare.You are kidding, right, when you claim: "Great Depression was a direct consequence of FDR's policies which deepened and lengthened what should have been a recession..."
A more nuanced and informed analysis of FDR might suggest that his New Deal programs---since they did not deal with the collapse of the dollar and with the collapse of the market effectively, contributed to deepening of the Depression in some sectors of the market.
That said, why do you and so many others assume that it is "liberal academics" who rate FDR as among the greatest of presidents? In a sampling of a group of historians---among which are conservatives, liberals, moderates, and many other flavors, the following presidents are well-ranked.
Rankings by Liberals (left column) and Conservatives (right column)
TOP PRESIDENTS
1 Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln
2 Franklin D. Roosevelt George Washington
3 George Washington Franklin D. Roosevelt
4 Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson
5 Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt
6 Woodrow Wilson Andrew Jackson
7 Andrew Jackson Harry S Truman
8 Harry S Truman Woodrow Wilson
9 Lyndon B. Johnson Dwight D. Eisenhower
10 John Adams John Adams
There is really little difference in this list. And, if this polling were to be done today, Dwight Eisenhower would also make the "liberal" list. His presidency is currently being favorably reviewed by liberal historians and moderate historians.
Here's an alternative list compiled by Ivan Eland in 'Revarving Rushmore'
"This survey is based on the principles of who maintained peace and prosperity and didn’t usurp individual freedom. Eland lets the chips fall where they may in “Recarving Rushmore”. Other historians should be so honest."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2461055/posts
1 John Tyler
2 Grover Cleveland
3 Martin van Buren
4 Rutherford B. Hayes
5 Chester A Artur
This isn't the sexiest list of all time - for some reason the "best" Presidents need to have a war to be remembered. Lincoln has the civil war (when really he held no value judgment on slavery, and only wanted to expand the federal government), FDR as the second world war (let's just ignore the Japanese-American internment camps, shall we?), Woodrow Wilson had the First World War (the overt racist actually had a hand in manufacturing that war too). The 'recarving rushmore' guys, on the other hand, a lot of people have probably never heard of. But why not? Because they don't have any of the above dubiously named 'achievements'?Equating a successful presidency with no wars and/or international conflicts is most problematic.
John Tyler as a supporter of slavery who actually was elected to the Congress of the Confederate States of America. His presidency is best-defined by the nickname by which he is know: "His Accidency". Tyler was also an advocate of using the military to suppress domestic political dissent and went as far as to send troops to the state of Rhode Island when some of its residents sought constitutional reform.
Grover Cleveland was sympathetic to the post-Civil War South and refused to enforce the 15th Amendment which protected the voting rights of African American men; sent thousands of Native Americans---against their will, to reservations; campaigned against the Force Bill which was designed to extend and secure voting rights; broadly interpreted the Monroe Doctrine and interpreted it to include Europe, and he refused to allow Utah to be admitted to the US because he believed it was a largely Democratic State.
Martin van Buren's presidency was marked by the near-economic collapse of the United States including the Panic of 1837 which resulted in a 5-year depression.
Are you aware of the history of Hayes' election? He lost the popular vote and failed to reach the electoral vote margin needed to win a presidential election. The election was thrown to Congress (as required by the Constitution) and Congress awarded him the needed electoral votes after he promised Southern Democrats to, essentially, end the post-Civil War reconstruction of the South. In addition, he firmly enforced the Monroe Doctrine, for example, sending the American Army into Mexico to control Mexican domestic social and political issues. And if this was not enough, he forced the assimilation of Native Americans into white culture.
And Chester Arthur, like his predecessors, caved in to Southern Democrats and failed to ensure the constitutional rights of African Americans; appropriated Indian lands and sold it to local whites, and he was a supporter of the spoils system in government.
Yeah, he only holds two degrees, one from Harvard and another from Yale.
And, he was not a bad student either. No worse than most students.
Just because his Intellect score is high doesn't necessarily imply a high Wisdom score (which was likely his dump stat). He probably left Charisma at 10, as well.
Let me say this: Most people don't make it through graduate school---particularly MBA programs without a lot going for them.
Being inarticulate is not a marker of lack of intellect or lack of "wisdom".John Adams---who lacked so much charisma that even historian David McCollough could not find it, warned Americans---particularly American voters of the folly of electing charismatic people to public office and considered charismatic politician "wannabees" to be among the most dangerous and real threats to democracy.
If might mean that, or it might mean that he was nervous speaking in front of millions of people. Don't you know anybody who is charismatic yet nervous to speak in front of large crowds?
To become the POTUS, you need charisma, intellect, connections, and money to finance a campaign. That's true of both sides. Democrats complain when Republicans make personal comments about President Obama, but what did they do when Bush was in office?
He wasn't particularly inarticulate when in a comfortable situation while speaking extemporaneously. Remember the scene on the rubble with the firefighters, "I can hear you and soon the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us." Not bad. It is in reading the teleprompter that he fell flat. I am not so impressed with Obama's vaunted speaking skills. Having graded speakers I would not give him more than a B+ for his very best moments. Reagan was a much better speaker.
Reagan was an actor so of course he was a better speaker!
Aren't all politicians essentially acting. Reagan had spent over a decade delivering speeches and writing essays while refining his understanding of conservatism. It wasn't only the acting but the ideas of which he had a thorough enough understanding that speaking about them came easily. This is something Ted Cruz has in common with Reagan.
Lol, Ted Cruz is a good speaker?
And you do realize that Reagan was notorious for passing tax increases that essentially wiped out whatever "gains" were made by cutting income taxes?Reagan...blah...blah...blah...blah. Presidents don't pass tax cuts or increases. It was the Democrat House of Representatives that passed tax increases, Reagan signed the bills. But the story untold by the Democrat Press is what else those bills said, what amendments were attached. Half a History is still History, I suppose. At least to Izvestia and Pravda and their benighted consumers.
"Reagan Signed The Bills"
So I guess he thought the tax increases were a good thing?
"You Don't Know What Attachments and Amendments Were In The Bill"
Doesn't seem to matter to conservatives now does it?
Keep trying Retief, you'll say something insightful eventually.It is far more likely that the trade off was acceptable since Reagan was unlikely to get any further or significant cooperation from Congressional Democrats. Currently it appears that a continuing resolution to fund non-essential Federal government services isn't sufficiently urgent as to warrant a compromise regarding a delay in Obamacare implementation, compelling Congress to accept the same rules all other Americans must, or fund the Federal functions that appear to have been left off Obama's essentials list (i.e. cancer treatments for children).
No. Altering behavior to adjust to a circumstance (e.g. making speeches, diplomacy) is not the same as acting.
The former is what the Japanese differentiate as "tatemae" and "honme." "Tatemae" is putting forth what you want society and others to see, while "honme" is what you truly believe at that time. They are both still a part of you yourself, but obviously different.
Acting, however, is completely taking on the persona of someone else, typically in the form of a character from a work of fiction. This person is not you at all (unless you're acting in your own autobiographical play).This post is very informative! It explains what I have been trying to figure out about myself since I was a teenager! I could never figure out why I changed personalities so quickly in every situation. I would try to present an honest view of myself, but would always end up altering my behavior, which I did consider to be acting. ( Is it natural for us all... as in, typical of human nature... I guess so, if the Japanese came up with those terms.)
Thank You, Zelkirro.
Bush's charisma far exceeded Obama's. He was able to work with opposition. Can you say the same of Obama?
Is that a problem with Obama's charisma, or is it a problem with obstructionist politics being the dominant Republican tactic since the man took office?
Obstructionists have never been a part of politics before? This is laughable!!! Both sides play the same games and have done so for years. The POTUS deals poorly with it; he has done nothing to build political capital or friendships among Republicans in Congress. Thus, yes, he doesn't really exhibit leadership or charisma, at least when it comes to crossing the aisle and working with opposition.
Its pretty hard to work with the opposition when they don't want to work with you.....
Obama tried bargaining with Boehner....heck, I bet Boehner wishes he could bargain with Obama.
The problem is that the Tea Party and the new breed of Republican lawmaker have to deal with even nuttier people who will primary them at every turn. If your a Republican who even considers compromising, some nutjob like Jim DeMint is going to fund your primary opponent and call you a RINO.
If the president is going to work with the GOP, the GOP needs to people like Ted Cruz to stop babbling about the Germans and start seriously thinking about how to help Americans today.Please excuse my crass response, as I am tired of hearing this excuse.
President Obama needs to stop whining about the Republicans and become a leader. He needs to stop trying to use the public to sway Republicans and actually do a little leading, perhaps meeting more with Republicans than he does a teleprompter. As it stands right now, all he does is blubber about how difficult his job has been because of those bad, evil Republicans. That's what the job is! NOBODY ever said that being president was easy. Both sides play hardball, and they always have played that way. If President Obama can't stand the heat, he shouldn't be president. He's not getting any different treatment than many other presidents have received. Have you ever heard any president say his job was easy? Have you ever heard any president say that the opposition didn't oppose him? If you have, it's an aberration and atypical. President Obama and his followers are making excuses. It's time for leadership. We need somebody to bring both sides together, and the POTUS has done a miserable job achieving that.*Sigh*
No one is saying that the GOP is bad for "opposing" Obama
The issue is when the GOP doesn't even want to negotiate.
Negotiating is when you say you want 4 and I want 6 and we agree on 5
The Tea Party wants 4 and won't even accept 4.1....
So why should Obama compromise? Maybe the Republicans should stop blaming Obama and start creating policies that will win them something other than House races that they only win thanks to fun districting and the propensity for Democrats to clump in big cities.I know that nobody is saying that. Your side is saying that my side isn't compromising. My side is saying that your side isn't compromising. All I hear is your side complaining about the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a small segment of my party, and it does not represent the majority of representatives. Maybe the POTUS should meet with Republicans and try to show a bit of leadership. Somebody needs to make this budget negotiation happen. If it's not the POTUS, then who should it be?
When was the last meeting between the POTUS and Republicans in Congress? He won't even call for meetings. All he does is blame Republicans. EVEN IF Republicans were to blame, shouldn't the POTUS be able to rise above it all, show leadership, and solve the problem by meeting with Republicans? Instead, what we get is an angry president who pouts, blames Republicans, and refused to meet with them. What great leadership!
These same kinds of disagreements have happened under other presidents. The difference is that other presidents were able to fix the mess. This president is unable to do so.
To be fair, I'm not happy with just about anybody in Washington. Both sides are playing petty politics, and the loser is America.You can only lead as far as others are willing to go.
Obama can do all he wants, but he can't force the GOP to negotiate if they don't want to.
Besides, we all know that the GOP and conservative pundits will call out Obama for doing anything. Like with Syria, when he was called out for not going to Congress. Then, he was called out as weak for going to Congress. It doesn't matter, the GOP will just stall and arbitrarily move the goalposts.
It's time for the GOP to stop whining and start doing something. Fake filibusters and fake bills aren't going to help anyone.
"EVEN IF Republicans were to blame....
It should read...
The GOP IS TO BLAME.....or at least the Tea PartyWe'll just have to disagree on that one. You claim it's a GOP problem. I claim it's a problem with one person, the POTUS. We'll never agree, but we can agree that this kind of repeated paralysis is something we have never seen, in our lifetimes, under any other president.
I hope something changes. I don't relish the reality of what is happening.
Best wishes.I'm not saying its a GOP problem....
I'm saying its a Tea Party problem within the GOP
When Ted Cruz gets any sort of leadership role on any major issue, that's a problem.
I really feel like Boehner and Obama want to negotiate. It was reported that 25 GOP senators publicly renounced Mr. Cruz.
If that doesn't say who is to blame, I don't know what to say.They support his goal; they do not support his methods. IF you had all of the GOP votes from people who are not affiliated with the Tea Parry, you'd already have enough votes.
And again, it goes back to the fact that any member of the GOP who doesn't lick the boots of the Tea Party are going to find themselves primaried whether they deserve it or not.
The fact that you can't see that is astounding....
Well said...thanks!
I am a lifelong Democrat and the current POTUS as well as the current Congress---Democrats and Republicans, are failing.
The current approval rating of Congress is at 10%---an historic low; the current approval rating of POTUS is at about 44% and falling. He deserves lower marks.
Both parties lack leadership. Both parties need to clean house and get rid of extremists.
The problem is that Tea Party people, like Cruz, are not serious about governing; not serious about representing the people. The same can be said about liberal extremists (like Raúl Grijalva and John Conyers and Steve Cohen).
No, the problem is that you don't agree with him. He's absolutely serious about making change. You just don't like the change he wants, just like I don't like the change the POTUS has been able to force upon us. See, most conservatives consider President Obama to be just as extreme as you consider Ted Cruz to be.
You blame Tea Party members rather than the GOP. Let me ask this then. When was the last time the POTUS met with Republicans to discuss the problem? I'm not asking him to meet with Tea Party members, but shouldn't he meet with the Republicans that you say are willing to work with him? Research this a bit, and you'll find that he is being criticized for giving up on coming to a compromise with Republicans, even by the media and some Democrats! Is giving up on working with the opposition a new style of leadership?Obama actually called Boehner last night trying to set up a meeting....
Stop making fair statements you're going to undo my assumptions about you.
He was a C+ student at a premier school, but remember that he did this before the grade inflation we see today. Back when Bush was at Yale, fewer people received an A or even a B. The July/August 2013 Yale Alumni Magazine points out that “Sixty-two percent of all grades awarded by Yale College in the spring of 2012 were a As or A- minuses. Comparing that with 50 years ago, when only ten percent were in the A range, some faculty believe Yale has a grade-inflation problem.”
A C+ at Yale, in 1968, would have been a respectable, decent grade. It certainly wouldn't have been top of the class, but it would have been solid. Today, a C+ would be scoffed at, but then again, a B would be scoffed at now; the majority of Yale students earn an A now. The reason for this is likely grade inflation, so yes, Bush did, in fact, do fairly well at Yale.I doubt that's the case. It's more likely that, as more kids have access to high-end universities, Yale can afford to cherry-pick only the best students, and the result is a higher average grade than when attendance was lower.
They were able to pick students in 1968 too; Yale was a premier school then too. Don't take my word for it. Do a little research, and you'll find that Yale professors are raising concerns about grade inflation.
One of the problems with your hypothesis is that many, if not most, colleges have a grade-inflation problem, and most of them are not premier colleges. Have all of these colleges become more adept at picking the best? Nope. Colleges are giving better grades, and I don't believe that's because our schools are putting out a better product than they did fifty years ago. Grade inflation is common practice now and has been for decades.
The idea that the POTUS should be negotiating over a constitutionally passed law is absurd. The GOP has been trying to overturn Obamacare since it was originally passed. It was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The GOP is actively attempting to undermine the democratic, constitutional process. Hmmm, sounds similar to what terrorists want to do. Not only that, Obamacare is essentially the same law that was instituted in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney and that whole healthcare idea was culled from a conservative think tank which was a reaction to Hillary Clinton's health care initiative during the Clinton adminstration. Obamacare is a conservative plan - the idea of health care exchanges is a conservative idea.
Exactly. It was a plan crafted by conservatives back when conservatives participated in governing and used their heads instead of their guts.
Yes, I'm generalizing.Eh, get a grip on facts before you compare the GOP's tactics to terrorism.
Especially since the Democrat Party would be more feasibly applied that way, if people were to want to apply it that way.
Terrorists KILL PEOPLE, usually at random.
The GOP has been doing what MOST of the people of this Nation wanted done. Just because everyone ends up being afraid to outright oppose Obama isn't anyone's fault but his, really. He LIKES the fact that people are afraid of him. He has several cards he keeps pulling out from that stacked deck he was elected on."The idea that the POTUS should be negotiating over a constitutionally passed law is absurd."
Laws are overturned all the time and have been since the founding of the country. No Congress is bound by the action of the previous Congress.
The current shut down is not over undoing Obamacare but over delaying its launch by one year. Obama is saying no, despite himself, without legal authority, delaying key aspects of the law. Also despite his political allies and Congress getting sweet deals to excuse them from or reduce the costs of Obamacare.
As for Romneycare, that was one small state not the entire country. It did not emerge from the Massachusetts legislature in the same form as the original bill. It is one of the major reasons Romney could not motivate conservative voters as he could not distance himself from an increasingly problematic system in the Bay State.
As for the often repeated terrorist crack, where are the bombvests?Well, if you don't even understand the definition of "terrorism" there's not much point having a discussion. Terrorism isn't defined by murder necessarily. It's defined by fear.
To assert that the current shutdown is not over undoing Obamacare when virtually everyone on the Right has said that's their goal is ridiculous and disingenuous.
Maybe the GOP should opt for a government shutdown over abortion next? Unless Obama negotiates on new abortion restrictions, the government will shut down. Bottom line, the GOP can't get their way through democratic means and are opting for non-democratic means. If they don't respect the system, at the very least, then they should be ignored.These are indeed "democratic" means. The majority in the House of Representatives were elected by democratic means. They passed a continuing resolution by democratic means. The continuing resolution says nothing at all about shutting down Obamacare. So why the objection, except to be objectionable since the President, himself, has delayed the full implementation of Obamacare.
Fear of what. I can think of few things more reassuring than a government shut down. My liberty has rarely been so secure. "Terrorism" is just another scoundrels retreat.
Since government shut downs are terrorism, undemocratic and disrespectful of the "system" than the multiple government shut downs engineered by Democrats must also be reprehensible. I guess no one has a monopoly on virtue or the lack there of.Texas Congressman Randy Nuegbauer said yesterday that he will keep government shut down for as long as it takes to keep Obamacare from being funded because it is the will of the American people.
Incidentally, he said this just a day before blaming a park ranger for denying veterans access to a government facility closed due to the shutdown.Mr. Nuegbauer is on the RIGHT TRACK regarding Obamacare. I really cannot fathom why some people are for this health disaster in the making. I am for what Mr. Nuegbauer is doing and for defunding of Obamacare!
The Obama shutdown, given that the House sent a continuing resolution bill over to the Senate for a vote that would have fully funded government and Obamacare, but would have required that Obamacare cover everyone removing the subsidies and exemptions from unions, businesses and Congress, itself. Obama said he would veto the bill and Democrats in the Senate defeated the bill.
So now we have children with cancer denied their treatments and aged veterans denied access to an OPEN AIR monument intended to honor them, the owners.The Obama shutdown? That's hysterical. The Tea Party has been talking about how shutting down government would be a victory for them ever since they were elected. It's literally been a component of their campaigns. So please, provide more comedy fodder.
I don't know why the Tea Party and the GOP just don't take ownership of this thing and tout it as their big accomplishment. After all, they haven't passed any legislation or done anything else. They are anti-government everything, so this is quite an accomplishment. They basically want government to stop functioning.
Exactly. The Tea Party movement, while most of its members probably do not know it or grasp it, is a modern anarchist movement; an right-wing anarchist movement wrapped in libertarian clothing and devoted to the deconstruction the democratic-republican government of the United States, and eventually, the American way of life and the republic itself.
As usual, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle..
While I agree that the Tea Party is extreme, I don't think that they want to necessarily ruin America. That's certainly where they are going if they keep pursuing their policies, but I don't know if that's the goal.
Unfortunately, they are getting in the way of reasonable people on both sides of the aisle who realize how crazy this whole mess has gotten.You are exactly right. Whether intentionally destructive or misguided, the Tea Party is getting in the way of reasonable men and women---including MANY in the Republican Party leadership and many in the Democratic Party leadership and many in the rank and file of each party, doing the people's work.
I have been studying American politics and history very closely for decades and there really is no post-Civil War analog for what we're seeing right now.
I would estimate that less than 1% of self-proclaimed tea-partyers and libertarians are actually anarchist. I rarely, rarely talk to anybody who supports anarchy.
Yes, any minarchist movement is going to be 'devoted' to the deconstruction of most of the government, that's pretty much the definition. However, you can't extend that to the American way of life and the Republic itself by any means.Do you really think that we could alter our system of government---create some sort of minimalist government whose only role is to protect individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and whose only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts, and the result would be no net change in the American way of life?
That's almost funny.Oh, there would be a net change, that's for sure... but it would be a positive one. It would do more to restore the American dream than anything.
Sure, some people would hurt, especially if they just want to milk the system. But the net change would be huge. Turn America into a tax haven, let people hire at any wage, and see what happens to the job market. There are trillions of private dollars that would come back into the US every year if we didn't have so much government mucking everything up.In the absence of a minimum wage the American Dream will be restored...really?
Once upon a time America was this place you describe; America was this place where corporations and capitalists paid no taxes; where workers had no minimum wages.
The result: The rich got richer and the working class were exploited and impoverished.
How anyone could possibly believe that a return to an America in which corporations and capitalists paid no taxes and workers could expect no minimum wages for their labor will make things better is beyond my comprehension.The absence of a minimum wage would help, but that's just a minor piece to the puzzle. There's a reason that young adults have huge unemployment rates.
America used to be the place that people flocked to, and in many ways it still is, because it was a land of opportunity. It used to be the place where businesses changed the world. Things have gotten worse, not better.
Boehner isn't a member of the Tea Party. You're putting a lot of blame on a small segment of the Republican party, one that has been largely ostracized by the Republican establishment and one that doesn't have the clout to do what you credit them with doing.
The TEA party, who are they? I thought they were as dead as Bin Laden. I have yet to see a (T) after any elected officials name. Are they a national party like the Green or Constitution or Libertarian Parties? Where is their headquarters? Or are they the current "THEY" that lefties can belly ache about?
I must be under the mistaken impression that we are talking about actual events and actual bills passed or bypassed in Congress, presently, resulting in the Obama Shutdown.
It is okay, without a strong fantasy life and emotional reactions lefties would have nothing to say.Yes, George Bush used to be the scapegoat for Democrats. That trend seems to have subsided a bit, and now we have a new scapegoat, the Tea Party. According to many Democrats, the Tea Party is responsible for every bad thing, from soggy cornflakes to genocide.
Its sad too, because I think most people realize that the Tea Party is bring America down, not necessarily the GOP......
If the GOP was smart, it would tell the Ted Cruz's of the world to go home. Unfortunately, that would then lead to some nutjob primarying them
What used to be of the GOP...
And sadly, some people will still support them
*sigh*It must be George Bush's fault. The sequester might be at fault too. Perhaps it's those people who cling to their religion and guns? Could it be the Tea Party? It's those evil corporations! No, wait, could it be the Christians who vote conservative? Was I supposed to blame the NRA? It's because anybody who disagrees with President Obama is a racist!
The Tea Party has far less power than you think, but that's not really important to Democrats. Democrats just like to have a scapegoat.
Sigh.Few people, especially lefties, seem to understand that the TEA party is not an organized political party, political action committee or any one single entity at all but rather an actual, authentic grass roots movement (admittedly with some less than grass roots attention tossed in with) rather than the astroturf that astroturf engineers - like wealth lefties(especially empty headed celebrity types) would have your believe. There is no "THE" in TEA party.
The Tea Party may not be organized (mostly because they're too stupid to know how), but they are a large movement within the GOP (thanks to equally unintelligent "gawd 'n guuuuunz" voters) that have gained enough clout to be able to strongarm the rest of the GOP into doing what they want.
And their status as a "grassroots movement" is about as genuine as Maxi Mounds' breasts.This is probably the same attitude that makes it difficult to accomplish much in Washington.
It is the evil TEA Party that has ordered the police to keep visitors from the Vietnam War Memorial. The National Park Service took time off from their Obama Shutdown Furlough to close the roads to the Viewing Area at Mount Rushmore - THE VIEWING AREA. What next fines for looking at the Washington Monument or walking on the side walks on the Mall?
It may not be a dictatorship but if enough of this foolishness continues it will look like one.I thought some Tea Party members, such as Michelle Bachman, were so opposed to this kind of ridiculous, asinine government statement that they personally showed up and took down barriers at certain Washington monuments, opposing the police.
And if you say gullible really fast it sounds like you're saying oranges.....
Did some Tea Party members show up and assist World War II veterans in their endeavor to enter a memorial? It's either a fact or it isn't. No gullibility is necessary to believe a fact.
Well, nothing's ever gone wrong when businesses go unchecked and we vote based on fairy tales, right?
And if you think the Tea Party has no power, I have no idea what Congress you have been watching. If this wasn't so serious it would be funny.
Wow, you sure changed directions there. I guess if one argument doesn't work, just abandon it and move on to the next?
Fairytales? Aren't you the same person who keeps mentioning hyperbole in another forum?
Those are outstanding talking points...
BTW....you should do a little research as to why unions are opposed to Obamacare and why Congress is "exempt" from the law.
Its fascinating how much sense it actually makes when you take the time to overcome the talking pointsWho cares if unions support the Affordable Care Act or not?
Unions don't even support the best interests of their members.
As for the Congressional exemption: It is a myth. And, in fact, POLITICO (that first spread this story) no longer stands behind its own story.
In fact, the only "exemption" for Congress is that they do not need to complete new paperwork in order to have their current coverage transferred to "Obamacare".There is also favorable funding for members of Congress. They will be afforded a better deal than you and I will receive.
Congress already has the Cadillac" of all health insurance plans and one paid for by taxpayers. And yes, under the Affordable Care Act, the members of Congress (and eligible aides) will get a significant subsidy---again paid for by the taxpayers.
I know...the unions claim employers will reduce the number of hours people work so that they are no longer full-time and therefore no longer qualify for insurance as a perquisite of employment.
What the unions are really worried about is NOT the employment and/or wages and benefits of their members. The unions are worried that the Affordable Care Act could hurt them---deflate some of their power in the marketplace as people find that the free market is able to do a better job for workers than unions.
Disney just decided to upgrade hundreds of part-time employees to full-time status so that they could qualify for insurance under the Affordable Care Act.The unions were four square for Obamacare when it meant a political victory for their man. Now that it represents an impending cost, to their power, their prosperity and to their member's pockets they are against it despite ample evidence at the time it passed that Obamacare would be a disaster.
Why not explain why Congress and their staffs are exempt from a law all the rest of America, except Obama allies, must obey?
Related Discussions
- 12
President Barack Obama vs. President Empty Chair
by ChenardRobinson 11 years ago
It seems funny to me that a man can be judged by his own ghost. Every President in the history of this great country has promised the moon and stars and given us some of what they promised and more headache and angst when they leave. But this President seems not to be fighting to keep his job...
- 85
President Barack Obama Most Popular leader of the world...
by pisean282311 13 years ago
In an Internet survey released April 23, 2010 and made between March 31 and April 12, H.H. the Dalai Lama was voted the second most popular leader in the world behind U.S. President Barack Obama.what do you guys think of this..specimen was very small...
- 6
What advice do you have for US President Barack Obama?
by Oyewole Folarin 11 years ago
What advice do you have for US President Barack Obama?His first term in office saw unemployment rate increased, national debt high and more US soldiers were killed while on deadly mission outside US. Don't you think his second term in office will be more desastrous?
- 43
How many of YOU who have voted for President Obama are happy with his
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
presidency thus far? Do you believe that President Obama is doing a good job as president? If not, who do YOU wished you have voted for instead of President Obama? Why?
- 6
What do YOU contend the TEN main goals that President Barack Obama has for Ameri
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
What do YOU contend the TEN main goals that President Barack Obama has for America?
- 205
Obama is not a communist. He is weak and not a good leader.
by PJ Jones 13 years ago
The President wants what is good for the country, but he lacks the necessary skills to get people to follow him. One flaw in is character is to let misinformation fester. "no drama Obama" does not make an effective commander in chief. I believe the Pres. had lofty ideals, but...