Putting things into perspective:

dapoes

Veteran
May 17, 2008
3,543
2,716
Since Obama is so fond of blaming Bush as his first line of defense.....

What If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro†in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof†of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Dayâ€, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get†what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?


So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.
 
You forgot the one major thing W did that Obama did not do. It was the thing that sunk his administration and contributed to the don fall of the party.

The rest of it are stupid things that all politicians do that are held against them when their popularity is in the tank.
 
I think this is a chicken/egg question. Weakness draws the media sharks. I don't think it's the other way around. The media I think are like wolves. They will go after the weak and infirm. W, was riding high after 9/11 and was given a pass. Once he was exposed as a fraud with Iraq, the media jumped on him. Regan was a the media love child. The 'great orator'. His admin was incredibly corrupt but he was given a pass. The media went after his staff like piranha after fresh meat but left him alone. Obama is being given a pass because he is not weak. I am sure that time will come.

What you call courage and guts I call myopic and stubborn.

Being POTUS is all about popularity. That is what this country wants and that is what this country gets. The people of this country have no interest in hearing the truth. They want to be told that all will be well and that USA is number one. You do not get elected in this county by telling the truth. While this country needs leadership at all levels, it will never get it.

Part of the problem is the checks and balances. A POTUS cannot do what he (eventually she) wants to do. They have to deal with various contingents of their own party as well as the opposition. I as POTUS may know what I want to do but I have to convince 535 reps and 100 Sen to agree with me. That is not going to happen. What ever I want is going to be watered down. Bush was in way over his head as well and surrounded him self with people who only knew how to say 'yes'. He stayed the course right over the cliff. Clinton had a pretty easy term. No wars, no major issues. W and Obama stepped into a huge pile of crap and do not have the ability to deal with it. Not sure anyone this country would elect does.

The POTUS is a civil servant. He works for all of us. I am not so sure that focus groups is a bad thing. Find out what the people want. Try and fill that need. If you get a lot of people saying they want X, Congress is more likely to listen. The people wanted revenge for 9/11. Bush convinced everyone that Iraq was involved and the US people said go for it. If the focus groups would have told W to go to hell, Iraq would have never happened.
 
You forgot the one major thing W did that Obama did not do. It was the thing that sunk his administration and contributed to the don fall of the party.

The rest of it are stupid things that all politicians do that are held against them when their popularity is in the tank.

I believe if you could fast forward a couple of years you could probably see that Obama is in the process of his parties downfall right now. Even if people would start realizing this now I doubt that they would start cutting on him because he is not a conservative and it is not cool to do that...............
 
That is quite possible. Dems and Repubs are different sides of a slug nickle. Neither is worth a bucket of warm spit. Until we get rid of the electoral college, we are stuck with the same ol'e BS election after election. The really bad part about this all is that the Repubs screwed up so bad and gave Obama a majority in both houses. Not a good idea for the Cong. and POTUS to be the same party IMHO.
 
First of all. Kudos to a great peice of work on Dapoes's part in starting this thread. Excellent job :up:

#1: Piney is absolutely correct in the fact that Obama is getting a complete pass for EVERYTHING he does, regardless of the harm to the COUNTRY!! He didn't say it, I will. This is because he is the first black President.....period! You don't believe that, go to another blog to better suit your beliefs. As well, he was correct as to W getting knocked for EVERYTHING under the sun.

#2: Gar, You always refer to the Iraq debicle (paraphrasing). Also, got a "pass" on 9/11, and so forth. We can argue for weeks on end about Iraq and/or 9/11, as I believe has been before here. The fact remains, W was SUPERB in the face of a catastrophy this Nation never experienced before. It MOLDED his young term at the time, and defined what he believed needed to be done. And he did it! Was there a cost? Very much so. History will decide who was correct, not you nor myself.
As to the Electoral College being scrapped. Your alternative is the Popular vote? The Framers diligently studied that concept and realised the dangers of what can happen with "Majorities". Which is another reason for the checks and balances put in place on the Legislative to curtail that. The Electoral College system is unique to the world, as is our system of Government. What has corrupted it is MONEY......PERIOD. Not Repubs alone, but Demorats as well. Lawyers, Lobbyists....they are everywhere. The SYSTEM we have will work.....if it would work as intended by the Framers.

I digress........GOOD DAY!
 
The Framers diligently studied that concept and realised the dangers of what can happen with "Majorities". Which is another reason for the checks and balances put in place on the Legislative to curtail that. The Electoral College system is unique to the world, as is our system of Government. What has corrupted it is MONEY......PERIOD. Not Repubs alone, but Democrats as well. Lawyers, Lobbyists....they are everywhere. The SYSTEM we have will work.....if it would work as intended by the Framers.
Well said.

I agree with your assessment.
 
With only two exceptions, presidents who won the electoral vote have also won the popular vote. The POTUS is not a monarch. Everything has to go by Congress and that is the check on any "majority" issue with the POTUS. I believe if you get rid of the electoral college, 3rd party candidates will have a fighting chance. Winner takes all gives me no incentive to vote for a 3rd party because it won't make a diff in a winner take all.
W was SUPERB in the face of a catastrophy

:lol:
 
With only two exceptions, presidents who won the electoral vote have also won the popular vote. The POTUS is not a monarch. Everything has to go by Congress and that is the check on any "majority" issue with the POTUS.
Oh really? :blink:

Ever hear of EO's?
Ever hear of Signing Statements?
What about Obama being the first president ever to have more CZAR'S absent of any legislative oversight, congressional approval, bypassing the constitution etc. And only reports to Obama himself! :blink:
 
Oh really? :blink:

Ever hear of EO's?
Ever hear of Signing Statements?
What about Obama being the first president ever to have more CZAR'S absent of any legislative oversight, congressional approval, bypassing the constitution etc. And only reports to Obama himself! :blink:
Here is an interesting article about the Obama czar system from the LA Times.

I am in agreement with Senator Byrd here. The President must tread carefully.

Their roles need to be clearly defined or else we will have a Cheney style task force on more than one issue.
 
Here is an interesting article about the Obama czar system from the LA Times.

I am in agreement with Senator Byrd here. The President must tread carefully.

Their roles need to be clearly defined or else we will have a Cheney style task force on more than one issue.
I must admit an excellent article from the LA Times. And, Tech, as with you, I actually agree with Sen Byrd on this one :shock:

Although appointing "czars" per se, has been done in the past, if this Administration is not reined in on their obvious thirst for complete power, this is either going to be be the most laughable Presidency in history, or the most dangerous. I don't like either scenario.
View attachment 8483
 
EO's and the rest have nothing to do with the electoral college which is what my statement was directed at.
Oh okay then I guess your statement:
Everything has to go by Congress and that is the check on any "majority" issue with the POTUS.
means what then? How does that have anything to do with the electoral college?