No idea what your snarky comment may have been, but where the hell was Matthews (and the rest of the liberal media) on this 4 years ago? It's not like BO suddenly changed who he was when he got elected. I have little doubt that Matthews will still vote for BO though. No Chris, BO isn't a leader; Never has been. Why are you surprised, I'm not. BO is still who he's always been. A few of us from the Chicago area know this.
So with the current budget debacle... is there method to Obama's madness?
So we had a budget crises.
Obama did nothing, so congress and the senate punted. They said "we promise to do something, even if it is kind of pathetic relative to the actual scope of the current problem, by the end of the year". Crises postponed.
Obama does nothing, and the congress and senate make no progress as neither side will make hard decisions.
Obama says "I won't sign anything outside of the original agreement". Which superficially looks like sound conservative financial leadership. Except that the original agreement has a bomb built into it where if no progress is made it just drops an arbitrary spending hammer across the board.
So now Obama, the house, and the senate all seem lined up to flee from putting their signatures on a hard decision... meaning that a fairly blunt and thoughtless ham-handed approach to the cuts will trigger. It seems like the highest priority of everyone involved is to be able to point to somebody else and declare "it was their fault".
I guess my question is about the executive branch. I know Congress makes the budget... but does the role of the president, as a single leader and visionary, include trying to shape and broker deals that Congress is stuck in?
I always pictured the President as the individual that could lead as they aren't forced to do everything by compromise and committee. That they would be the one that sees the right thing and pushes for the hard decision because it is them and just them that takes the fall and gets the credit. The individual who's job it is to make the best guess guess based on their best judgement and the best information available, and try to move forward on that path.
That kind of thing will never happen in committee... so it seems like the kind of thing that must come out of the executive branch.
You used "Obama" and "leader" in the same sentence. I've seen "leaders" during my career in the USMC, The White House, construction and the motorcycle business.
You forget that the mere notion of fiscal responsibility does not contribute to the end game goal of collapsing the economy, and riding of capitalism - he wants it to fail, it has to for his agenda to go to the next level. The realignment of the dollar clenches it. Once the fed pulls that lever - it is done.
Obama is the perpetual victim. It's never his fault. This is an example of how he is setting the game board to not be his fault again. After all how can it be his fault; It's congress that can't agree to move forward; It's the super committee that can't fashion a solution; It's the problems in Europe that are holding us back.
None of this is leadership. A leader sets the agenda and stays in touch with those involved in making it happen. A leader will be aware when opposing sides are failing to work together and work to improve lines of communication.
A victim stands idle while others lead and take the risk. If their ideas succeed the victim will look for an angle for his advantage. If their ideas fail it's not the victim's fault, he wasn't even involved.
BO was never a leader in public office, looking to vote present on any issue that he might be held to account. As President he has claimed to be a victim of the previous administration. He's worn the tires off of that vehicle though and needs a new ride. Time to blame the congress for this campaign season. Surely there will be some smaller players to point at with the fickle finger of blame. Probably OWS for impeding free enterprise. Whoever needs to be thrown under the bus will find their turn.
Yes the President is the one who should be setting the tone and agenda. The tone has been one of division of the people though. He plays on race, wealth, and political party just to name the obvious. Suddenly Jimmy Carter is looking like a leader of men.
Reep Executive branch proposes a budget then its approved in the house then on to the senate. New spending is proposed by Pres or by congress then the same process procedes A program can be inacted by a bill but the congress can limit or stop its funding in each years budget.
Gads.........I'm driving home and all of a sudden I see traffic has ground to a halt.
Guy runs up to my window .........
"terrorists are holding the entire congress hostage and threatening to douse them in gasoline and set them on fire unless they get $10,000,000 quickly........can you help?"
The middle finger 'F+ck You' is not universal. The Russian finger gesture is different , it is a thumping of two fingers across the neck; sometimes followed by the up ward flick underneath the chin similiar to the Italian gesture. It is the "Go F+ck Yourself or Lets get drunk and F+ck" depending on the tone, and intended target.
However - Medvedev has made no bones that BO doesnt have a clue how to run an economy... and this is from a former Communist country - .... one that EMBRACES capitalism and a journey TOWARD greater economic freedom and activity AWAY from state controlled assets and central command economy.... why - because it doesnt F+cking WORK !
Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 09:14 am:
The middle finger 'F+ck You' is not universal.
The gesture seemed to be very purposeful. I'm sure it was supposed to have some meaning. Any thoughts about what that might be? Only thing I can think of is that many Russians are familiar enough with American culture to know what it means to us. Also offers "plausible deniability" as opposed to using the typical Russian gesture.
The channel, which goes out to 120 million people across Russia, has declined to comment. But sources close to it have tried to defuse the row by claiming that the newsreader had believed she was off camera at the time and merely providing a voice-over for a report.
Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 02:56 pm:
yes, I was twelve - when he left office
but I had a grandfather that was rather ranking in the military, and was very fond of making sure I knew and understood world events. I still can't believe the Navy had the audacity to name a Sub after him.