How about the budget for his campaign. I’ll bet no previous presidential campaign had such a large budget.
There is no historical correlation between a President’s experience, executive or not, and his skill as President.
Sniffing around is not at all the same as running. He was a Senator for two years before he announced.
Hilda Solis didn’t have tax problems.
Not having any executive experience might explain why someone would push for a bill so large nobody read it.
Yes, running around looking for support is different somehow. If you want to believe he rolled out of bed in January 2007 and decided to run for President than I’m not going to challenge your religious beliefs.
Solis’s confirmation process was then set to for a committee vote on February 5, but was postponed again after news that Solis’ husband Sam Sayyad had just paid $6,400 in outstanding state and local tax liens for his auto repair business going back to 1993
At this rate, Obama won’t need to raise taxes, all he has to do is complete his cabinet posts.
And the $150 million dollar coronation ceremony during an economic crisis. A crowning achievement worth mentioning.
Does running a company into failure qualify?
Not aware of any CEO’s who ran for President. the last 5 Presidents were Governor’s or former VP’s.
I didn’t use to believe in Obama. Hillary was my woman for months before everything went belly-up.
But she fell out of the race, and then I started paying more attention to this upstart Junior Senator. At first, I was impressed by his rhetoric, but I was cynical about his message. Plenty of hope, I thought, but how many (especially minority) candidates have run on such an idyllic message only to have the rug pulled out from under them before election day? Honestly, so jaded by the political process I’ve grown up with, I didn’t trust Obama. It’s just talk, I told myself.
But I did agree with many of his policies, even if I had little hope he or congress would come through with them, so I voted for him last November. Now, fast forward to today.
For the first time in my life, I’m hearing political pundits say things like, “This is exactly what the President promised when he was campaigning.” Even John McCain is admitting that Obama is delivering on what he sold to the American people. Finally, we seem to be getting what we paid for! That, to me, is one of the most impressive things about this whole ordeal.
The Republicans (and a hefty share of blame goes to Democrats in congress and Democratic presidential candidates for allowing themselves to be sucked in by it, too) succeeded sometime during the Clinton administration in jading the entire population of the US. Somehow, we all completely lost focus on substance and began going nuts over rhetoric and political technique.
Look at what all the politicians and political jockeys talked about during the late 90s and early 200s. They didn’t talk about how substance won elections. They focused on spouting on and on about how certain words and phrases and buzz words could raise up or kill a campaign. About how religious candidate A was or how suspiciously secular candidate B is. Rove spun us a new dimension of politics. A kind of politics where the actual science of political systems is removed and a popularity contest ensues. During the time of Bush, even the politically-savvy overlooked the substance of what was happening due to the overpowering influence of appearances. To me, it feels like the entire last 8 years was a gigantic game of obfuscation; as if every American just threw their hands up in the air and said, “Well, they’re the leaders. They must know what they’re doing.”
It has taken Obama to make me realize that for the last 8 years we haven’t had leadership in this country. Does anyone feel like Bush or the Republicans were leading us anywhere? That they had a goal beyond “stirring up their base” or simply keeping the Democrats from enacting “liberal” legislation? The Republicans didn’t suddenly turn into the Party of No after Obama won and the Dems regained congress. They’ve been obstructing this country without providing a new vision for nearly a decade.
Now here comes Obama. He’s touring the country, gaining the confidence of the people, and being completely transparent about it. He’s set up websites devoted to nothing more than helping us keep tabs on what he’s doing and how his plans might affect America. Was anything ever transparent about the Bush administration? Obama is delivering, and it is a sweet, sweet feeling.
Obama should be terrifying to the Republicans (and lazy Democrats) not only because he’s a Democratic president or popular. They should be hiding under their beds quivering at the realization that a real leader with a real vision has stepped up to the plate. Regardless of whether you agree with his views, Obama is redefining what it means to be a political leader in America. Not because we’ve never had a leader like him, but because we don’t remember one. I think that says a lot.
Honestly, I think his inexperience is an asset. He’s not looking at things the way a more experienced politician would–he’s thinking outside the box because he doesn’t know where the box is. And that is exactly the the American public wants and what I think we’ve been needing for a while now.
Sorry…even pedantry doesn’t work for this one (if that’s what you were going for). Google “Bush spectrum 7”.
I think this summarizes his executive business success. If you consider his Presidency a failure (which, as I understand it, most Republicans now do), his single executive success story (discounting personal wealth increases) was his TX governorship.
Unless he’s pissing off civil libertarians on the left, and fiscal libertarians on the right. Which he can do by simply being authoritarian.
The things that have pissed off the left aren’t tax cuts and business-friendly policies - they’re things like executive privilege, secrecy laws, rendition, wiretapping, lack of transparency and other civil rights issues. Things pissing the right off aren’t civil liberty increases such as eliminating the drug war or gay marriage, but more regulations, payoffs to Democratic constituencies, and fundamental budgetary dishonesty.
This is a disturbing trend.
Frankly, ‘strong leaders’ with charisma and an ability to push their vision on people scare the bejeezus out of me. History is replete with strong leaders leading their countries over cliffs. In a representative democracy, the people are supposed to tell their leaders what they want - not the other way around.
I’m reminded of George Bush who was “strong” after 911 and who came up with the idea to invade Iraq. Nobody was calling for the invasion of Iraq before Bush proposed it.
Just what has Obama done or calls for that hasn’t had a significant number of people asking for it ?
They did tell their leaders what they want. By voting out the party of stupidity, ignorance and insincere flag-waiving.
It’s a good and valid point, although not very weighty IMHO.
I’ll grant that the biggest policy disagreements from the left are on civil liberties (justified, IMHO), but there certainly are lots who feel that there should have been more spending and less tax cuts in the stimulus bill. And there’s the brewing brou-ha-ha about funding religious institutions (misplaced, IMHO).
From the right, OTOH, I think we’ve yet to hear much about the reversal of “conscientious objections for medical treatment” – mostly, I think, because it’s so recent. And as far as regulation, so-called “payoffs”, and “budgetary dishonesty” – can you supply some examples that are actually substantive (and not just figments of fevered righty imagination)?
How is leading us in a bad direction a good thing?
My response to this is, “How do we know what a “bad” direction is?”
Perhaps my feeble understanding of economics leads me to this, but my take is that we’re in this mess because people (who are considered experts in economics) made decisions they thought were the right ones (and yes, I also understand that legislation red tape befuddles the matter further by adding stipulations/concessions etc. - it is not “one thing” that got us here). It is, however, possible that their decisions were good ones based on the information that these folks had at the time (our current critique is distorted by subsequent events).
Now that we are in a rut there are now other expert economists who are claiming that they were against the first group the whole time and that if we had listened to them we wouldn’t be in this mess…
Well, maybe they are correct, but I doubt we could have known this with any great certainty before now. Were we not currently in dire straights this new group would either remain quietly on the sidelines or they would make claims that would sound ludicrous to the (still successful) status quo, either way we’d never have reason to think they really knew better.
The economy basically cycles through four phases (it is four right?) My basic understanding of statistical regression would lead me to think that this would always favor (eventually) anyone who claims the market will swing another way.
Did you even research your cite? Spectrum 7 was a gas and oil exploration corporation that merged with Bush’s company. They took a hit when oil prices fell. He wasn’t responsible for driving the price of oil down any more than a farmer is responsible for the weather.
And yes, his GOVERNORSHIP was a success story. You make it sound trivial when in fact it is the closest thing to the job of President. It is a complete microcosm of the duties and responsibilities. He was the first Texas Governor to serve back to back 4-year terms. That gave him 8 years of real executive experience versus Senator Obama who had 2 years as Senator with no responsibilities. The buck never stopped at Obama’s desk. As President, his idea of fiscal responsibility to date has been to encourage massive spending without regard to content.
When he’s running for reelection are you still going to be saying this? There’s nothing he or anyone can do to change how much experience he had before being elected.
A. The stimulus bill has had quite a lot of attention paid to its content, by Obama and others.
B. The thing to do when the economy is bad and getting worse is not to sit on your hands. Hoover did that, and it did not work well.
Doesn’t it strike you as stupid to argue for executive experience as a necessity for a president when the bumbling fool who left this country in a bumbling disarray had eight years of executive experience?
Doesn’t it seem like a stupid thing to argue?
Intelligence, good ideas and temperament are what you need. And Obama has more than any president of my lifetime.
Well I wish he would communicate exactly what he is marshalling war effort for, between the people on the dope and on the street are of the opinion that we are in a straight forward recession, a bad one , but still a recession and there are proven ways of getting through the situation.
Yet Obama is using a couple of trillion dollars to fight something that no longer looks like a recession, so I am sitting here looking at people talking obama is doing the wrong thing to fight a forest fire when we have an asteroid heading to earth.
Thats what I would have liked him to communicate, what exactly are we fighting that requires that much expenditure.
Declan