Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I am not going to re-create the context, it can easily be followed. It is all related to trust and credibility.
--- merged: Mar 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM ---

What did Bush have to do with this? Everything incomprehensible here? I know why you introduced Bush, are you saying you don't understand my analogy?

I am even gonna add to the analogy since you care about what other people in other countries think about our President. If you loved your lady, would you care about what a survey of other people said about her? Is that how you roll? Do you typically have relationship problems with women? I wonder why?

 

From your post #63:

Assuming you read my response and the discussion regarding religion and politics, you can easily see the context of my response, post #68.

 

You sound like my daughter in NYC when she gets pissed off at me when I kid her about her radical feminism (get a job, sweetie, then save the world) ? She takes after her late mom.

 

Here is my post #68:

The issue you seem to have problems with is a paragraph 2 issue, I told you why I think it is connected and it is not even the main thrust of my post. If you don't understand it, fine - I am saying it applies to me and I say why. Again, you want to go down this - what Ace thinks is illegitimate thing...why not respond to the substance or ignore and move on? Why do we need to play these games?

Have I not made my views clear? Are you pretending that is all there is to what I have written on this subject? I have repeatedly shared the names and types of politicians and others that I trust. I give reasons illustrating why and why I do not trust. In fact, on this subject I had questions - I have made it crystal clear what I think of Obama over the years. You and DC want to turn the focus on to me for some reason - it is silly.

No.

Has Obama ever done anything that put your trust in him in question?
--- merged: Mar 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM ---

Children can often provide a unique insight. I never dismiss the observations of my son. I try never to respond to him in a condescending manner. Your "get a job, sweetie..., is condescending.

 

Thanks for your insight, Ace. It confirms I'm a great dad and not a rigid narrow minded extremist.

 

These two questions a mountain make?

What does this mean: ....?
Shouldn't we expect some clarification from the WH?

If your response was - nothing and no - we move on. That was not your response - your response was, paraphrasing, Obama was just being political. I wanted to know if that was acceptable to you, you could have said yes - we move on. Then of course we have DC, bringing Bush into it...
--- merged: Mar 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM ---

Anytime.

Oh, sarcasm, I get it. In-spite of what you wrote I am sure you are a great dad.

 

My response is predictable. In my opinion Obama's job is to be President. His re-election efforts are not important. I expected Presidents up for re-election can simply run on their records and their plans for the future.

At the risk of confusing the issue - I will say that Fehrnstrom's etcha-sketch comment regarding Romney is problematic to me and reinforces why I will not vote for him. In my view (read, my view) these things are related. If you don't see it, drop it and move on - because this is my view (read, my view).

It depends on what he wants to accomplish in the arms control talks. Do we know? I agree, we may know what he is saying today, but can we trust what he is saying today? I would say - no. If you say, yes - fine we simply disagree, nothing more to it than that. Pretty simple.

If he has a plan, executes his plan, and gets results that benefit the US and the cause for a more peaceful world - I will congratulate him. However, as it stands right now, his style is blocking my ability to see clearly to his end. This is an example where in the style v. results question, I am on the style side of the equation. I know this, and it is one reason I sought input from others. I am open enough to ask the question. I am honest enough to share my biases. I would think it refreshing to be presented with such an opportunity for discussion.

 

Yes. I do not think the political climate within the US should affect arms talks between the U.S. and Russia. I believe it is the responsibility of a US President to first build consensus within the US prior to talks with other nations. If Obama stated that he was in the process of doing that and that he expected to have a mandate from US voters after the election I would be more comfortable, he did not say that. I realize the difficulty in negotiating in such a circumstance, but it is the system we have.

I also believe that the President is more responsible for the political climate than anyone else. I expect the President to manage the political climate, not be managed by it. Being managed by the political climate is an indicator of political weakness. I believe other world leaders see it that way as well.

Assuming DC will bring up Bush again, I do think in his last term Bush became politically impotent based on his failure to manage the political climate.

 

Both Obama and Medvedev had to build some level of support among the hardliners in their respective legislatures for ratification of the START II treaty in 2011. Both had to be flexible and neither had to deal with the political climate of an election at the time. I would consider START II a significant accomplishment for both leaders and I would suggest that most world leaders did as well, given the widespread of support for the treaty.

 

No. You do not wait for perfection. It seems you would direct that to Obama, he is the one waiting for a time when he might have more flexibility, assuming he gets reelected. My suggestion would be for him to move forward as best as possible, starting with building a consensus in the US regarding his plan.

I don't believe you really understand how I think. I have read some of your attempts to restate what I have written, and your responses to what I have written, like the above reference to "a perfect world."
--- merged: Mar 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM ---

Not everyone would agree with your assessment. I present this just to illustrate that point, nothing more - I don't care what you think of IBD or the author. From IBD's editorial pages, a portion from a peice written by Krauthammer:

The Obama Administration's Cherished "Reset" Policy With Russia Has Been A Failure - Investors.com

 

I did not suggest that everyone would agree with my assessment.

I said Obama and Medvedev both demonstrated leadership by getting more than enough support among their opposing interests in their respective legislatures and that most world leaders approved of the treaty.

You cant please all the hardline hawks all of the time. In fact, a Democrat can rarely, if ever, please the most rigid, closed-minded right wing ideologues.

 

Assuming you read DC's post, Obama got the New Start ratified in 2010. 2010 was a contentious election year.

No, we know Romney's views. And, to me it illustrates the importance of a good debate on the issue. Perfection is the thought there would ever be a time when everyone agreed, or a time when a election is not pending - or in Obama's mind is it always about what is easy for Obama?

No. When you say discretion, what do you mean? Can you give a known historical example to illustrate your point?
--- merged: Mar 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM ---

Agree, but one can build consensus.

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have stated many times, that I can disagree and still support. And I have said many times what it takes - open/honest discussion, conviction and trust. Obama generally misses on all three - for me.

 

START II was not ratified until Feb 2011. The lame duck Congress in post-Nov 2010 put ratification on hold (election politics) until the new Congress was sworn in in Jan 2011.

Kinda reinforces the fact that you cant get some things done when election politics interfere.

My mistake, the lame duck session did ratify it. Neither Obama nor Medvedev had to deal with a re-election circus and all that goes with it.
--- merged: Mar 30, 2012 at 4:22 PM ---

How is getting a significant number of the Republicans in the Senate (who vowed to block nearly everything Obama proposed) not building consensus?