The Laid-back Presidency

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (70 posts)

60
A.Villarasaposted 10 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.
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Bush doing manual labor on his ranch makes Bush a better president how, exactly?
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  74
  Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  He found some shovel ready jobs?
  
  Even Michelle was involved!
  
  We really ought to give the guy a break, it is his first job after all.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sure thing!
  
  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!
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The VETO pen is mightier than the sword... and the great unequalizer between the executive and legislative branches of government.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin 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}
  
  {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/
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin 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/
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin 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!!
  
  The accustions change, but the "--ers" out there swallow and projectile vomit them unquestioningly, long past the point of discredit.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, Mr. Villarasa, for your viewpoint.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 61
  prettydarkhorseposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  55
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
3. 81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin 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..
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin 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:
  
  Now that would concern me.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  50
  Lie Detectorposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously all republicans read the bill in the house because they all voted no.
  reply report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think it's unlikely that all Republicans were fully aware of all the details. It's more likely that some just voted along party lines. Likewise the Dems.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No wonder Congress is more unpopular than any other governmental instituitions, except of course the IRS. Voting strictly along party lines is as abhorrent as Obama (during his Illinois Senate days) voting "present" instead of voting aye or nay on bills being considered in that state's senate chamber. I don't think those lazy days in Chicago/Illinois, he still could ascribe to having been exposed to the slumbering effect of the Hawaiian sun.... as Mighty Mom posted, somewhere in this forum.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  @DON:
  
  You are forgetting that after the 2008 presidential elections, both the House and the Senate were under Democratic control; thus the speed with which Obama/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid got the bill passed, never mind that a lot of legislators on both sides wanted more time to be able to read, and carefully make judgement on it....time that was not given to them because the above gang of 3 knew that if those legislators ever get to understand the onerous implications of the bill, that it would have been voted down.
  
  Now that folks in Congress and the Senate, antd the general popuplation at large have started to look at the bill carefully, they are starting to make the conclusion that Obama Care is bad for the country as a whole. Some of Obama's Democratic ilks in the Senate have started to call it "a train wreck".
  reply report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Again that doesn't indicate laziness on the President's part, it indicates shrewd politicking, which is as old as congress itself. It's certainly not unique to the current President. Besides, I would expect anyone voting on the biggest proposed changes to health care since 1965 to make it their top priority to read and understand the proposals. If that meant doing nothing but reading and asking questions for two weeks, so be it. If they didn't then once again that reflects their laziness.
  
  I don't agree with that reading of the situation, but assuming that's the case for sake of argument, that is why there are established protocols in place that allows legislation to be amended or repealed altogether. Any legislator can draft an amendment, or propose a law be repealed. Indeed if you feel so strongly about it, you can request that your representative does so on your behalf.
  
  Regardless, none of this indicates laziness on the President's part. If you want to say the President is lazy, okay that's your opinion, but the example you have presented as evidence is a poor choice because it doesn't indicate that at all.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  @DON:
  The general consensus is that Obama is the most ideological president that ever sat in the oval office. In politics as in almost anywhere else, ideological and pragmatic are oxymorons.
  reply report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's a big claim. A general consensus among whom? Critics? Right wing politicians? The whole population?
  
  In my opinion while some liberals consider Obama to be too conservative, most conservatives consider him to be too liberal (read socialist). The reason I think that's the case is precisely because he is a pragmatist who is more interested in trying to get things done than extolling the virtues of a particular ideology.
  
  In his early years as President I think he was keen to play down the ideological differences, in what he hoped would be a post-ideological age of politics. Experience in office with an intransigent opposition seems to have made him more aware that in the realm of public discourse ideas are often framed in terms of one ideology or another. As a result he seems much more willing now to refer to the GOP/ Republican position compared his position. I don't think that makes him an ideologue though.
  
  Even if you think it does, the fact remains that he and the opposition have both expressed and debated their ideas about how to run the country in public, and the country has chosen Obama, not once but twice. As such, whether he is ideological or not is really a moot point isn't it?
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  @DOn:
  Ideology could cut both ways.. so it is not the sole purview of liberals. A concervative could be as ideological as his liberal counterpart. I suppose if someone's ideas, ideals and ultimately ideologies just does not fit neatly one's own world view, one could call the other person an ideologue.
  
  But Obama's ideological bent is more pernicious than those of others because he is quite willing to disregard the sensitivities and sensibilities of the people at large, in pursuit of consequences that only favors his sympathizers, supporters, and defenders.
  reply report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'd say the opposite. I think at times even his supporters have criticised him for being too considerate of the sensibilities of his political opposition. Too willing to compromise his position, too willing to negotiate, too willing to blink first for the sake of the country. To me that doesn't indicate someone who is entrenched in ideology. It indicates someone who is more interested in looking after the country than their own pet 'ism'. Every politician is ideological, nothing wrong with that, but when ideology becomes almost pathological (like saying no to billionaires paying more in taxes) then it causes a problem. In contrast I think the President would be quite happy to pursue policies that genuinely would work regardless of what end of the political spectrum they come from. For example most of the section on doctors malpractice in Obamacare came from the GOP. As you rightly say in 2009 the Dems controlled both houses, so those ideas weren't adopted to get the Bill through. They were adopted because they were good ideas. Again that doesn't indicate someone who puts ideology first.
  report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  @Don: By all means tax the billionaires more, but if you think taxing them more would solve the debt crisis (16 trillion dollars, more or less, as of last counting), then you are barking at the wrong tree.
  
  The amount of debt obviously started to accelerate when G.W. Bush was president, and came up to 12 trillion dollars when he left office. In less than 4 years, Obama added to that amount, 4 trillion more... and at the rate that he is spending our tax payer's money, when he leaves office, the projection is he would have added 4 trillion dollars more to the national debt. He can not contnue just printing more and more money without running the risk of hyper-inflation, something that most economists and the Federal Reserve Board are absolutely trembling in fear of.
  BTW TORT reform is not a part of Obama care....unless of course if I am misreading the intent of my malpractice insurance company that just charged me another 10% on top of what I paid it last year.
  report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Here's an example of the issue. The GOP added a provision to the fiscal cliff deal that required a budget plan to be passed. In fact they've been calling for a budget plan to be passed for four years. But Republicans have blocked all recent moves by the Democrats to form a budget conference. Why? Because Democrats will not agree up-front to exclude talks about increases in revenue for the plan. Not actual increases in revenue, just talks about them. So one side is not even willing to begin a discussion unless part of the discussion has been ruled out from the start, even though they have been calling for that discussion for four years! That's the problem with ideological entrenchment. The pragmatic approach would be to have the discussion, find areas of common ground that can be progressed, then perhaps work on some compromises on the problem areas. That's the approach the President seems to be trying to take (even to the extent of inviting Republicans out to dinner and some rounds of golf). He looks like someone who is trying reach for a solution, not rule things out of the discussion. His schmoozing of the Repubs can be described as pure politicking, but it would be hard to call it lazy or ideologically entrenched.
  
  I remember reading that the President instructed the HHS to progress some specific tort-reform initiatives put forward by the GOP, which was a major concession, but you are right, no tort reform made it into the final Bill.
  
  10% increase? Ouch. The people who can get health insurance for the first time are probably a lot happier about the Bill than those who might be paying more.
  report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  @Don:
  Obama was elected twice, but saying that his ideological perseveration does not matter because he was elected twice... is illogical to say the least.... like putting the bogey before the horse.
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I meant top say, the cart before the horse.
  report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  @Don:
  What you call "ideological retrenchment" on the part of the Republican leadership is not exactly accurate. If there was "retrenchment, it was because they have had previous meetings/encounters with Obama on issues of mutual interest, and came out of those meetings badly bruised and battered, from Obama's intransigence and inexplicable about-face to his Machiavellian machinations at assigning all of the blame on them when the talk stalled..
  A case in point: Obama invited Paul Ryan (the House Budget Committee Chairman) to his media event explaining his own budgetary plans. Paul Ryan was asked to sit right in front of the president, then at one point in the event Obama started to inexcusably excoriate Paul Ryan's budget in the most uncouth and unflattering terms. Now is that a way to treat your invited guest?
  report
  81
  Don Wposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think you misread me. Entrenchment is different to retrenchment. It's the act of digging in, being fixed, not moving etc. Even if the (frequently unreasonable) demands from the GOP have been rebuffed, that doesn't excuse sacrificing the country for the sake of their ideology. They like small government etc. Sure, everyone gets that, but isn't it better for both parties to be reasonable and get some of the things they want, than for neither party to get any of the things they want?
  report
74
Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago
Disrespectful, yes. An anomaly, no!

We all know what Bill Clinton did to the office!
reply report
1. 60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin 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/
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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."
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The what, now?
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 10 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc
No comment.
reply report
1. 60
  American Viewposted 10 years agoin 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
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  People will draw their own conclusions without me pointing out the obvious.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  LOL You're getting too mellow MM
  reply report
2. 60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
61
Petra Vlahposted 10 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
reply report
1. 60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Petra Vlahposted 10 years agoin 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
  reply report
  60
  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  G.W. Bush would be treated harshly by history because of his mis-management of those 2 wars.
  reply report
  55
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Petra Vlahposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  55
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin 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
  reply report
  61
  Petra Vlahposted 10 years agoin 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 .
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

The Laid-back Presidency

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

The Laid-back Presidency

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies