We don't need another Bush or Clinton in the White House

[crweeks64]

tw, First, I hope you are not linking me to Rush Limbaugh who I have never even listened to because I believe he may well be the biggest fraud ever. I detest his style and approach. Second, the Presidents you listed were all active. They enjoyed the Presidency and tried many and varied approaches in the domestic and foreign affairs areas. I think you can argue that Obama exercises restraint (that would be kind) but even his most ardent supporters (of which you certainly may be one of them) have a difficult time describing him as decisive. Also, you totally ignored the first part of my description i.e. lack of leadership. You create a straw man and then ask me to knock it down. I hope you have some time. Syria- he laid down a red line (use of chemical weapons) then balked when they crossed it. Then sought the Congress to weigh in and help him out and when they didn't get involved had Kerry broker a deal they now tout as a huge success except Kerry Himself said recently he would not be surprised to learn that Asad is stilling using chemical weapons (research it -don't take my word for it. Additionally, do we all remember when the administration was crowing that early on in the revolution that Asad was not long for the job? That was 160,000 civilian deaths ago. (do you like that number?) Ukraine- told Russia you better not invade Crimea or else! Ooops, I guess not. Told Russia, well we are really serious this time you better leave Ukraine alone or else! Has failed to do anything to push back against Russia's violations of international law against a country that should probably have been in NATO (reference your own recent comments on Turkey for the mind blowing implications of that) Promises to aid Ukraine and has done nothing (at least overtly) to back that up. Issues sanctions against Russia that have accomplished nothing and Europe half heartedly supports because they need Russian energy. Iraq- Specifically walks away from a status of forces agreement and leaves no significant American presence against all advisors, military and civilian, and now wonders why we are in the current mess with ISIS. Afghanistan- the one war he calls legitimate- was going to possibly leave without a status of forces but now probably (even him) has the audacity for which to walk away. Spoke about a surge of forces to end the war while telegraphing exactly when that end would be regardless of the surge. What were our brave men and women of the military to think about that? ISIS- aside from the above only acted against them when beheadings began and public opinion polls soared against his Foreign Policy (or more correctly lack there of) and demanded action. Promises to arm the Kurds and use them (and others) as our boots on the ground and hasn't given any weapons or assistance and now a Kurd city, Kobani, may fall to which I will predict massive atrocities by ISIS against the conquered foe whose only mistake was to rely upon action by this feckless President. He issues air strikes against ISIS and they are getting stronger or at least no signs of weakening. Oh yeah, and orders 3500 troops to West Africa to help in the fight against Ebola instead. Enough of Foreign affairs I hope that even you can concede me at least a point or two. Domestically: I think it is a stretch to say that we were heading towards another Great Depression, even so we didn't get there. Roosevelt did everything and anything to deal with the economic crisis he faced. He acted vigorously and swiftly. I do believe he is one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Although never mentioned and always conveniently forgotten, OBAMA HAD A MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS. Thus Obamacare, which even he was calling the Affordable Care Act during its disastrous launch and roll out. I believe he is back to calling it Obamacare again. I won't include that as inaction. That was definitely action regardless of whether one likes it or not. The point is that while the democrats were ramming Obamacare through without any republican support they lost the opportunity to do so much more with regard to jobs and the economy during that same period of time. The Obama administration must share some of that blame. Let's forget that Obama spent more time blaming the Bush administration for al the ills that had befallen us. I don't remember Roosevelt laying blame when he took office, rather he acted. Two years after Obama won the Presidency the republicans take control of ONE HALF of Congress. Ever since, Obama has been blaming them for his failure to act domestically. Indulge me a bit further, after all you wanted "facts" and "numbers". The debt crisis- The President had the power of the Presidency and the Senate but all he has down is kicked this can down the road and blamed the House for blocking his efforts. We had a debt commission he "commissioned" and he wouldn't follow their recommendations. He has continued to speak, but not act, about the dangers of failing to follow his policies. Take the fight to Congress, use the will of the people to get something done. The silence (or should I say inaction) is deafening. The Fed- The one area where he can attempt to exert a modicum of pressure he has laid off like he is there lap dog. Instead of quantitative easing which just floods the economy with more and more lower value dollars he should be working to strengthen the value of the dollar by dealing with the debt and deficit, making the economy more job friendly (and not low paying or minimum wage jobs) and encouraging manufacturing not strangling it with EPA regulations. Keystone pipeline- why in the world can't he just get this done? We can argue over how many jobs it will create but even the unions are for it for Pete's sake! Act! Please! Immigration- "act (yes, finally) or I will!" er maybe not until after the midterm, if at all. What? I thought we were going to finally do that "act" thing. I apologize for the length (which I assume you will call a rant) but you asked for facts and numbers which I have attempted to supply. tw, I respect your opinion which is why I even attempted this in the first place. Be fair and concede me a point or two if nothing else. Regardless, I am always of the opinion to "respectfully" agree to disagree. As always we may have to wait for history to run its course and by then where will we be? It is at least fun to debate in the meantime.

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

Also, you totally ignored the first part of my description i.e. lack of leadership. You create a straw man and then ask me to knock it down.

I addressed your assumption that Obama did not display leadership. That Syrian Red Lne is the perfect example. Only talk show disciples believed or promoted that indecisive leadership nonsense.

Obama drew a Red Line on chemical and biological weapons. Assad crossed that line. Once confirmed, then a massive (and mostly diplomatic) confronation caused Assad to immediately surrender. Obama organized a 'shock and awe' response that many ignored because it did not have big bombs and nighttime explosions. It only got nations all over the world immediately involved in weapons elimination. Using shock and awe the way it is supposed to be used - diplomatically.

Countries actively involved in locating, removing, and disposing of those weapons include and is not limited to the militaries from China, Russia, Italy, Norway, Denmark, France, Cyrpus, Britian, and other unnamed nations. All jumped to support or were brutally forced to cooperate.

Russia initially tried to protect those Syrian biochemical weapons. But a diplomatic 'shock and awe' was so massive that even Russia quickly changed, stopped blocking UN resolutions, and participated in military operations to remove those weapons ASAP.

A Red line that Assad crossed resulted in a massive response that was obvious. But is unknown to many informed by talk show types such as Limbaugh.

No, I am not saying you listen to Limbaugh. But your "Obama is indecisive" is what talk show educated people do when they have no idea what really happened. Syrian Red Line was a classic example of an immediate, massive, and decisive action by Obama that even got China and Russia to stop obstructing it in but days. Only talk show propaganda and lies called that indecisive. Lies work because so many had no idea how and why Assad suddenly and immediately surrended his weapons.

160,000 deaths? I don't care. Obama (and most of the world) expected Assad to fall. Assad did not for reasons directly traceable to the powers that be in the regioin. I don't care if that number is 2 million. Because deaths are totally irrelevant to what is more important - a solution. Apparently too many in the region love and worship gods that massacre people, promote jihads, destroy economies, and empower the dumbest among us. So many must die so that intelligence and other lessons taught by great philosophers, politicians, writers and religion are finally learned. In some venues, 2 million deaths may not be enough.

My only concern is that it takes that many deaths to replace wacko extremists with educated and informed moderates. Unfortunate. But we also know tens of millions had to die so that maybe ten or twenty people will sit at a peace table and end the war.

Like it or not, that is how mankind works especially when extremists (the uneducated) exist. 160,000 is but a trivial and unfortunately necessary number.

That number says nothing about Obama. It is not our problem. It is our concern. But it is not our problem. Only decisive leadership has kept us out. Eventually people most reponsible for those deaths - including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, etc - should be held responsible for THEIR indecisiveness. But again, that is also not our job.

The Affordable Care act - what it took to get done - is a classic example of wacko extremist liberals and wacko extremists conservative who even today are not blamed for their anti-American actions in Congress. Considering that we in America so hate ourselves as to let extremists dominate the conversation, then it also explains why your post did not list the wacko extremists who have no business being in government. Because they want America to fail. Some openly said so. Getting Obamacare done was almost a miracle considering how few people on the hill are moderates; because so many are anti-American.

Debt crisis? What crisis? While extremists in Congress continue to make America fail, the debt is slowly diminishing. It will take decades to undo the spend and spend and spend more policies by wacko extremists who then blamed Democrats for it. Pallets of $100 bills in multiple 747s were distributed in Iraq and nobody knows where it all went. The problem is traceable to wackos who also said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Those wackos who created it are not screaming that a debt crisis exists. While Congress wants to make it worse, the administration has been slowly diminishing that debt.

Now, what would you do to suddenly make this debt go away? I expect no definitive answer. Because none exist. Debt will be paid as it has always been paid those many times previously. By selling off American assets and lowering domestic standards of living. You see Obama doing what previous administrations also did to eliminate such debts. Where is this rumored indecisiveness? Problem is being solved as previous massive debts were solved. And being solved while Congress tries to obstruct the solution by even hyping mythical fears of debt.

EPA regulations strangle only when talk show hosts hype half truths. For example, why do cars get better gas mileage? Because EPA regulations for less pollution forced technologies that also increase gas mileage and reduce automotive costs. Details are too long for this post. But only the dumb confuse pollution crap with what was really gas mileage and horsepower increasing crap. And that also decreased the costs of cars.

Blaming economics on Obama is rediculous. The American economy is doing better that most other economies due to fiscal responsiblities institued after 2007. Decisions made in 2008 are now appearing as economic health on today's spread sheets. What any government does today will not change economic numbers until after 2018. Economic vitality now seen and restored in the American economy is due to responsible and decisive economic decisions made four and more years ago to undo the mess (a massive depression) created by wacko extremist economics.

Government cannot make economic improvements. It can make econmoic health possible. Or it can harm economic health. What was done after 2007 in a decisive manner is why the American economy now has health. Also explains why we did not suffer what should have been 40% unemployment.

Keystone pipeline is a big humdrum about crumbs. That pipe or something equivalent will be built. Powers that be in that region must decide whether they are patriotic America or wacko extremists wanting America to fail. The pipeline initially had some serious routing problems. But now many wacko extremists liberals and conservatives are fighting to obstruct it only because of an education based in rhetoric. Its not the President's job. It is their job, their business, and their potential jobs.

Cape May county desperately needs a gas pipeline to provide electricity and heat in a reliable manner. Wacko extremist claim a pipe buried underground far from anything else will destroy the environment. Total nonsense. Nonsense made even more obvious by other facts. Would you call Obam indecisive for not intervening? Why then is he responsible lfor their Keystone pipeline?

How would you solve immigration? Act on what? I do not even see a problem defined. What would you have a President do when you did not even specifically define each immigration problem?

BTW, I do not consider it a rant. But it is difficult to read due to no structure - ie no paragraphs that separate each topic.

The President is not a dictator. He has no business making trivial business decisions such as the Keystone pipeline. When Congress has too many extremists, then the world's best President in all history can do little. Where he needs no Congress to accomplish something, then Obam has done well. Obama has the same obstructions and lack of accomplishments that Clinton had due to the same 'we want American to fail' extremists now found in Congress due to gerrymandering and an increasing number of wacko extremists.

I notice you avoided Orion, Ares, and Constellation. A perfect example of indecisiveness by a wacko extremist administration. And another decisive solution that started in 2008.

If the President is indecisive, then he refused to order the extermination of all extremists. Clearly he is indecisive.

[crweeks64]

tw, I guess I wanted to get everything out so I did away with structure in that last post. I apologize.
I think we can agree on wacko extremists except you see them everywhere on every side of every issue.
If you say that Congress is a big problem or a major contributing factor I agree but there are clear lines of demarcation on certain issues and which branch of government has what powers.
I think we at least agree Rush Limbaugh is no good.
Your views are deeply held and well expressed so no one can fault you for being non-committal.
A lot of your response seems to indicate this issue or that issue is not Obama's problem but I limited my examples to those to which he stepped squarely into the middle.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on President Obama's leadership or lack thereof and his indecisiveness. As I said history will tell.
I don't ever think that my views are better or worse than anyone else, but like you I own them. I always learn something by discussing topics even if I may disagree with another view. Of course, there is always the possibility that a mind may change.

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on President Obama's leadership or lack thereof and his indecisiveness. As I said history will tell.

Obama has a problem that Kennedy had. He does not engage Congress in a confrontational manner. His history is to work by consensus. That works when others are working for what matters - in this case the advancement of America.

But we know extremists do not want to advance America. Rush Limbaugh defined an extremist agenda - "We want America to fail." In a Congress with too many holding that attitude, Obama's 'leadership by consensus' will not work.

That (not Obama's overall leadership) is what Panetta, et al have been critical of.

Kennedy was similar. He was incapable of pushing Congress into passing a Civil Rights Bill. He could see strategic concepts but could not do the little 'day to day' button hole politics that manipulate Congress. Johnson was a master at that. One would think Kennedy used Johnson to manipulate Congress. He didn't.

Obama was discussing solutions to the nation’s deficit problems with Boehner. Boehner and Obama were doing what both are good at - negotiating in good faith to create a good working solution. That was until the extremist Cantor found out about it. Boehner remembers what happened to Gingrich. He should. He was part of the gang that stabbed Gingrich in the back; eventually drove Gingrich from Congress. Cantor and his Tea Party extremists threatened to do same to Boehner. So Boehner reversed himself, stopped working with Obama, and would not even take the President's phone calls. Either he advanced America by working with Obama, or played politics to save his job. Boehner had no choice. Congress and Boehner have been adversarial.

Obama does not work well with adversarials who negotiate in bad faith. That is the soft underbelly of his leadership. He was superb in situations that required balls (ie getting bin Laden, the Assad red line, convincing Generals to abandon their 'another decade of war' in Afghanistan). But does badly when his partner negotiates in bad faith - only want to destroy negotiations (ie Netanyahu). Obama does not have skills that, for example, Johnson was a master of.