jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (70 posts)

The Laid-back Presidency

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    Vanity Fair ( that paradigm of liberalist-leftist publication) in its most recent issue, spread out quite a  bit of pictorial essay on what they term as  Barack Obama's " laid-back style of presidential leadership".
    At a time of societal dessication, governmental  obfuscation, economic consternation, and secularistic  confrontation, should the president be seen and photographed, with his legs up the presidential table( in self-assurance), both arms behind his head (in self-satisfaction) , beaming from ear to ear and seemingly unconcerned about anything else but his next golf excursion with Tiger Woods?

    If it was another president,  what we would be seeing on magazine pages is a presidential countenance  busy as busy can be trying to deal with the daunting problems that the country currently faces.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obama has taken an average of 72 days holiday yearly in his first four years, George Bush 2 spent 130 days on holiday average per year in his first term . Seems pretty clear who the lazy president was.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Josak:

        When it comes to presidential vacations it is not the number of times or days  that matters but the expenditure of taxpayer's money that goes with these vacations. GWBush mostly had those vacation days in his ranch in Texas and he spends them mostly doing ranch work. Obama on the other hand goes to all sorts of places, (sometimes his wife and kids goes to a  different place, again at our expense), and does not do any manual labor except maybe on the golf course, dines at expensive restaurants and hops from  place to place to place on Air Force One, with the secret service in tow.
        And BTW, when Obama was interviewed on TV by one of the ABC or NBC news anchor, he admitted quite  unremorsefully, that he is by nature a LAZY person.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Bush doing manual labor on his ranch makes Bush a better president how, exactly?

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @MM: I neither implied nor even hinted that Bush was a better president  because of the manual labor that he did in his ranch. What I was strongly suggesting, is for Obama to do more manual labor than what he has been accustomed to doing.. it might cure his congenital laziness.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes indeed.
              If he would for a while get his hands dirty in the actual soil of the land he supposedly loves,  it might keep his nose out of everybody's personal business and the issues that he has no business being in in politics even.
              For instance,  it's normally up to the people to initiate a law.    Yet Obama's been pushing his personal agenda, including that huge health care bill he bullied Congress into passing,  and taking over every aspect of American society that he can.   He doesn't even have a handle on what a President's duties are, much less have the ability to empathize with the average American or what the normal way to make laws is.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image93
                Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                He found some shovel ready jobs?  lol

                http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4915247429780469&w=273&h=187&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

                Even Michelle was involved!

                http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4906872260526277&w=148&h=175&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

                We really ought to give the guy a break, it is his first job after all.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sure thing!  lol

                  Well, he sure did hire in at a high rate of pay for his first job!
                  Bet he wouldn't have taken it if it only paid minimum wage!

        2. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He did admit to an underlying laziness in an interview with Barbara Walters.
          Attributing it to growing up on the sunny beaches of Hawaii.
          Unremorsefully?
          He abhors laziness as a trait.
          He also said that when he catches himself getting lazy, he gets mad at himself.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @MM: HHmmm I would not want to be in his shoes....continually and perpetually being mad at himself for "catching himself getting lazy" . As good as Obama is at constantly assigning blame except to himself,  he must be telling people that all that hopping on Air Force 1 has mad him lazier.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Who would he be telling that to?
              I just saw a clip of him responding to a question (read: accusation) that Congress' inability
              to get legislation passed is HIS fault.
              He rightly pointed out that Congressmen/women are elected by THEIR constituents
              to represent the people in their district or state.
              Getting legislation passed is THEIR JOB.

              They are not even in the same branch of government as the POTUS.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @MM: And when they do pass a certain piece of legislation, wouldn't that legistlation still be under the mercy of Obama's WHIMS AND PREJUDICES?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The VETO pen is mightier than the sword... and the great unequalizer between the executive and legislative branches of government.

        3. Quilligrapher profile image89
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Trying to defend President Bush II’s vacations, either for cost or duration, appears to be an impossible mission:

          “At a bare minimum, for the flights alone, Bush's 77 vacation trips to Crawford cost us $226,072 per trip.” That is more than $ 17M just for airfare. {1}

          President George W. Bush “was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.” {2}

          President Bush “spent a total of 1,020 days away from the White House — close to 3 years…President Bush spent 32% of his presidency on vacation…Bush took the longest single vacation — 5 weeks — of any President in 36 years.” {3}

          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/0 … 072-a-Pop#
          {2} http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama- … -bush.html
          {3} http://www.crewof42.com/uncategorized/t … ge-w-bush/

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Quilligrapher:
            I suppose the sources of your data that you cited above are paradigms of absolute truthfulness, honesty, factuality and apolitical intrusiveness.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I merely responded to your unsupported claims with verifiable facts about vacation costs and duration. I invite you to do the same.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Quilligrapher:

                I am merely suggesting that the publications that you got your data from are not excactly the publications I would go to to give me facts and figures that are untainted by political/ideological agenda.

                if you tell me that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has the same numbers that your publications have... then perhaps I may be more inclined to give you or  the Daily Kos etc. etc. the benefit of the doubt.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                  Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Where does factcheck.org rank in your list of credible news sources?
                  Higher than the hate blogs and email chains that continue to spread misinformation
                  about POTUS and FLOTUS travel, one would hope.

                  http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/the-tr … president/

                2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Mr. Villarasa, I gave you facts with verifiable sources to support them. You respond by challenging the accuracy of the sources instead of refuting them with facts of your own.

                  Verified facts stand on their own merits and their validity is not reduced by your opinions of the sources. The only way to discredit claims supported by facts is to provide other facts that prove the original facts are false.

                  If you have any facts that refute my sources, I would welcome the opportunity to read them.     
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How long have we been doing this? Since 2008?
                    Surely by now we all recognize that facts are irrelevant (like polling numbers).
                    Innuendos and lies, repeated often and loudly enough, become truth!! lol

                    The accustions change, but the "--ers" out there swallow and projectile vomit them unquestioningly, long past the point of discredit.

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @Quilligrapher:
                    I was not the one who opened that can of worms called "presidential travels and vacations"....Josak did. My OP was about  Oabama's  laid-back leadership style, and I am certainly not referring to vacations and travels. As far as I am concerned, presidential vacations are almost always  "working" vacations.

                    But since were are on the subject of potential and actual costs of those "vacations" you quoted three sources that,  as far as I am concerned based on prior history of those sources, are neither unbiased nor untainted by their ideological bent. Now if you could say it with a straight face (and not a hint of irony)  that those publications are the ultimate in honesty, veracity and integrity, then I could swallow your factoids, hook. line and sinker. Personally I'd rather go to the CBO for those factoids, if they ever include in their calculations of governmental expenses (i.e. our tax money), ---presidential travels and vacations.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak,

        A.Vill is right, look at the days and where they were spent. Are you aware Bush at his own expense created a situation room, office and conference room, media center in his Crawford Ranch? Are you aware Bush NEVER missed a security briefing even when he was in Crawford. Obama misses half of them even when he is IN the Whitehouse. Many people do not know this but when Bush was in Crawford and a transport plane came back from Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush flew back to honor all those who gave their life.Obama does not do it even when he is in the Whitehouse, well Obama does go when there is a photo op to be had.

    2. prettydarkhorse profile image64
      prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, did you see how he called members of Congress or Senate personally just so they can agree about almost major issues re : budget etc. He did compromised and continues to do so.

      I think he is an underrated President, but it is very clear that he really works hard.

      1. profile image84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's his job as the POTUS.  Doing his job doesn't really make him great.  To be great, he needs to go the extra mile.  He doesn't do that.  I'm not complaining.  I dislike his politics, so when he doesn't try very hard, we conservatives benefit.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Prettydarkhorse:

        Under-rated? How can you say that when his acolytes and worshippers in the main-stream media and the general public at large are constantly  prancing and dancing to the beat of his drums.

        A case in point: TIME magazine has included Obama, during most if not all of his presidential years,  in its yearly list of the 100 Most  Influential Person In the World. He has also been listed by TIME magazine as one of  the 100 Most Influential Person in History.   ....in History!!!!. And to think that he has not  even passed away from the political  and or earthly scene.

        Under-rated you say?  You must mean Over-rated.

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. I agree. And while we're at it, how much time does he spend in the bathroom?! Those are valuable minutes being wasted! Fit him up with a caffita and colostomy bag already, so we can be sure the country doesn't lose a single minute to this bone idle shirker. Some might say the fact he ran in two presidential campaigns (and won both) shows he's far from lazy. Rubbish. Any lazy bones could do that. Some might say that beating all the odds to become the first African American president must have taken hard work. Nonsense. Any African American could have done that at any time. Just needed someone with a bit of gumption is all.

      Oh and let's pump him full of drugs to keep him awake. What, he expects to be President AND sleep? What sort of bum is he? That's 8 hours he's wasting on a necessary biological process! A.Villarasa I suggest you start a change.org petition to get these things implemented. But of course they should only apply to President's whose first name begins with B, and whose last name begins with O, and middle name begins with H (and ends with n), and who has afro hair, and a wife called Michelle (I bet she's just as lazy too btw. All she does is run that “Let’s Move! Active Schools” campaign which only a really lazy person would do). Pfffttt what a pair of wasters!

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Don:

        Sarcasm is just not your style....I think.
        Serious discussion befits your intellectual prowess more,  as in having a conversation with that avatar of atheism, Mark Knowles.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @Don:

          BTW I just read your hub "An approach to Theism and Non-Theism in a Pluralistic Society."

          Excellent work.... now if only Mark Knowles would follow your advice.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A sarcastic response is all I could muster to what is, to be fair, a pretty frivolous opening post. Sorry you didn't appreciate the humor. Glad you liked that hub though..

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @Don:
              If you think that the country is on the right track, and Obama's policies as mediated, manifested  and  or transmitted by his laid-back presidential type of leadership are doing the country a lot of good... then the OP is frivolous.

              But I don't the country is on the right track...so I'd say the OP is as serious as serious can be.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, but I just don't think putting his feet on a desk and hands behind his head indicates that he is not "trying to deal with the daunting problems that the country currently faces". To me it indicates that he is just a man, doing one of the most stressful jobs in the world, taking a moment to relax. Seeing that does not concern me. If he looked like this:

                http://www.mediacynic.com/pics/mad_magazine_cover_obama.jpg

                Now that would concern me.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @DON.
                  Putting his feet on his desk etc. etc. are just superficial manifestatuions of his inate laziness.... buit manifestations nonetheless.

                  A case in point: He enacted and pushed through Congress his Universal HealthCare Bill known more universally as Obama Care... all 2 thousand pages of it. Now did he even take the time to go into the details of that bill before he pushed it through Congress. I don't think so, I suppose in deference to his favorite congreswoman.. Nancy Pelosi who famously said: We will pass the bill , then you can read it later... or something to that effect.

                  Now that we are reading it....and we could only conclude that most of its major provisions are in fact abominations.... to all of us TAXPAYERS.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It's the responsibility of the representatives and senators of congress to understand the details of the Bills they are voting on. It's not the President's job to spoon feed them. If details in a Bill are missed, it doesn't indicate the President is lazy. It may indicate that Congress is lazy.

                    Besides, what you perceive as a weakness in a piece of legislation, may be perceived as a strength by others. It depends on your personal beliefs, ideas and aspirations. Sometimes no side of the aisle can get everything it wants into/out of a Bill, but the general benefit of passing the Bill is recognised. That's not laziness. It's called compromise, and it's not a dirty word. In fact it's a necessity for making group decisions in a pluralistic society.

                    In my opinion passing a Bill that some people disagree with doesn't indicate laziness on the part of the President. Not passing a Bill that is supported by a large part of the population (extending background checks for purchasing firearms for example) indicates laziness. But again you can't lay that solely at the President's door.

                    And regardless of any of the above, nothing is set in stone. If some aspect of a law simply does not work, it can be changed. That's what democracy is all about. In an ideal world we'd get everything right first time. In the real world progress is incremental. Accepting that fact is not laziness, it's pragmatism.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Disrespectful, yes.  An anomaly, no!

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/desk2.jpg

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/desk3.jpg

    http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4916291126559633&pid=1.7&w=235&h=167&c=7&rs=1

    We all know what Bill Clinton did to the office!

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes we all knew what Bill Clinton did... but at least Monica wasn't much of a distraction when it came to him  focusing on solving the problems of the country. History would be very kind to Bill Clinton because his presidency was not encumbered by ideological permutations... unlike Obama who  is unwilling to shed his leftist ideological bent---to the  detriment of the country.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think he looks at the Presidency as an experiment.    He mentioned in an interview a few years back that America was "an experiment".
        And look at the "healthcare bill" that he's pushed on us.   Nobody including him can tell what's even in it;   I don't know how they even wrote the thing;   that's quite an "experiment".    I wonder if it's just a dare, really, to see who will oppose it!    Sometimes, sure enough, I think he's waiting for people to tell him NO and stop covering for him when he messes up (which he's done already on almost every issue);  then he might stop laughing at everyone and actually face up to his job.

        Like John McCain said years ago,  we don't have time for on-the-job training when it comes to the Presidency.   The Obama prodigy has proven to be incapable of learning what America's about and how to lead it correctly.   The experiment failed!   Yet we keep tolerating his nonsense.   Sometimes Americans are so stupid.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          America IS an experiment. An experiment in government never conceived of before our founding fathers.
          As to the failure of the grant experiment, here's one take on the matter:
          http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehun … as-failed/

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @MM:
            "America is an experiment" indicates that you believe  the experiment is still on going. Really? After close to 4 centuries of experimentation, one would hope that the process had been  concluded and the result  proclaimed in no uncertain terms.

            It is obvious that the author of the  the Forbes article you cited firmly believed that democracy as conceptualized and actualized in America(or anywhere else for that matter) was and continues to be a gargantuan   failure.... because it led  and continues to lead to  governmental  tyranny.

            However the author might rage against that perceived failure, America  (for most people outside of America), is  and continues to be the "light at the end of their tunnel." Americal despite its all too obvious faults is and continues to be "the land of the free and the hope of the brave."

        2. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @Brenda:

          The fact  that the liberal-elitist main stream media has not taken him to task for those failures, and continue to, in essence, give him a free ride, has  made Obama,  more brazenly  arrogant in his dealings with Congress and occasionally the Supreme Court. If there ever was a monarchial presidency, Obama's is it... encouraged by the court jester( main stream liberal media) and  not much opposed by a conservative party  that is pretty much in shambles.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The what, now?

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago
    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Come on, no comment, Really? Let it out, be true to the inner feelings, only then will your journey to the force begin

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        People will draw their own conclusions without me pointing out the obvious.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          LOL You're getting too mellow MM   smile

    2. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @MM:

      If I remember right, Bush was severely excoriated by the liberal main stream media for that piece of hubristic-macho showing off. And rightly so.

      If I remember right, Bush stopped playing golf thereafter.

      Meanwhile Obama  continues to play golf... and continues to hop along Air Force 1  i.e. flying off to Las Vegas Nevada for a political  fundraiser, while the Benghazi consulate  goes up in smoke smoldering, like an unattended forest fire.

  4. Petra Vlah profile image61
    Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago

    I don't really care if a president is lazy or not as long as he is EFFICIENT - working long hours and accomplishing little or nothing, dose not make a president great

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Petra:
      Based on your definition Obama is the most inefficient president of all time, because the only major accomplishment of his presidency is pushing thru an abominable piece of  legislation called Obama Care. Some in the press have started to call him a lame-duck president... and this is just the first 100 days of his second term. Stunning.

      1. Petra Vlah profile image61
        Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I responded to the topic of the post and did not refer to Obama in particular.
        If getting us into two unnecessary and costly wars is what you call "efficiency" and accomplishments of a great president, than the Moon is at the center of the Universe

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          G.W. Bush would be treated harshly by history because of his mis-management of those 2 wars.

          1. profile image84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            . . .and yet, even with two wars and 9-11, Bush's presidency was infinitely more successful than Obama's in many, many different ways when you look at economic indicators.  Obots don't like to hear that though, do they?

            I'm not saying Bush was a great president, only that Obama is a horrible one.

            1. Petra Vlah profile image61
              Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              By economic indicators you mean the financial crises of 2007 - 2008 when America was bleeding to death on Bush's watch? I am not saying Obama did enough, but since he inherited an economy in life-support it is not easy to turn things around immediately, unless of course you have a magic wand.
              Truth be told, Bush inherited a budget surplus from Clinton and left a budget deficit to Obama and that's an undeniable fact.
              At any rate, there is much blame to go around and all politicians are protecting only for their own interests and forget promises as soon as they get to the rat infested place, also know as Washington D.C.

              1. profile image84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, let's include the financial crisis.  He still has better numbers than Obama.  Let's include 9-11.  Let's include Iraq.  Let's include Afghanistan.  Let's include runaway spending under Bush.  Let's include it all.  Give him all the liability for each of these issues.  Guess what . . .his economic numbers are still better than Obama's numbers.  That's how bad Obama is.  Google GDP.  Google the debt.  Google job creation.  You'll find that Bush beats Obama.  Of course, who doesn't?

                By the way, there is a pretty good argument that Bush warned of the collapse and tried to stop it.  Before blaming Bush entirely, you might want to watch this.  Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, and ALL democrats who were in Congress have some skin in the game of destroying our economy too.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

                1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                  Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  By all means. The democrats are no saints and no better than the republicans; all politicians play the same dirty game with no regards for the well-being of the regular citizen who suffers no matter in which hands the power is .

 
working