Excuse me....the Presidency is an executive position...
Posted By: sam on 2008-08-29
In Reply to: Figures McCain would pull something like this - double standards
Palin is the only one of the four who has executive appearance. She is as ready to lead right now as Obama is. Obama has zero international experience other than one trip to talk to the Germans in a political speech.
And I would think the fact that your #1 has less experience than McCain's #2 you would stay away from the experience thing...?
He picked her because she shares his ideals..wants change in washington. Obama wants that too. McCain picked a REAL Washington outsider. Obama didn't. Soooo..they are saying some of the same things Obama is saying, but when Obama says it is good, when they say it, it is bad?
Hello President McCain, and VP Palin!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
She has 12 months in an executive position, actually running a government...
Obama does not. She is going to be 2nd chair, not 1st. If either of them is going to be training on the job, better it be 2nd chair. She also served as mayor, which is also executive work. She has more experience to be President now (and that is not the position she is running for) than he does. Just fact, based entirely on experience. And the only reason I posted that at all is that is the first criticism of her that surfaced here. Personally, with Obama's limited experience going into the first chair, not the second chair...I would think his campaign and his followers would want the conversation to avoid that...that make an issue of it. Just an observation.
What would an Obama Presidency Mean?
What Would an Obama Presidency Mean?
by Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.
The Democrat Party has for years given lip service to the African-American community. They have talked about prominence without fulfilling the promise. They patronize without empowering. Worst of all, this unholy bond has done more to decimate and deplete our community than slavery and Jim Crow laws ever could have accomplished. This allegiance has destroyed millions of our children; children created but denied access to the American dream, children aborted.
The Democrat Party has been a major contributor to the African American slippery slide down the slope of depravity. It has caused our community to deny the God of our Fathers and ignore the counsel of His Word. This Word brought us up and out of Egypt. This Word broke the chains of a terrible bondage and established us in the path of upward mobility and prosperity.
Our loyalty to this political regime has vexed our leaders and organizations. Institutions that were birthed to advance the causes of Afro-Americans, now in their ignorance, lobby for our decline. NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Rainbow Coalition, Urban League, the list goes on and on. All of these were once heralded groups with anoble past and great historic accomplishment. Today, they are stymied by this ungodly tie. Rev. Jessie Jackson, AL Sharpton, Julian Bond, Joseph Lowery are all allied in party and, in the process, have lost their souls. What happened to the God of Dr. Martin Luther King?
Despite this deplorable behavior of our perceived leadership, the winds of change have begun to blow. Pastors and leaders in the Black community have begun to remember their roots and realize they are chained to mediocrity and complacency. There has been a consistent flow of Afro-Americans making their way back to freedom. This has sent shock waves through the present Democrat leadership. While we are yet somewhat in a vacuum of solid Afro-American leadership with true integrity (there are many on the horizon not yet recognized), we are once again being wooed by the oppressor’s ploys to stay on the plantation. Staying where there is little reward and where our lives and votes are taken for granted. Once again it is someone of our own ethnicity, our own race being used. The Democrats have deployed a new pied piper in a desperate attempt topreserve their self serving party.
New face, same tune. The song being played is from the movie “The Culture of Death.” The goal is to fill the seats with Afro-Americans in the theater of apostasy. Why? Because if the current trend continues the Democrat party could soon be performing in their final act.
Enter Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill), who is truly turning out to be one of the greatest performers of all times. Obama’s biggest act is that he calls himself a Christian.
Howard Dean, Chair of the Democrat National Committee, scripted most of the scenes in this production starring Obama. Dean outlined an approach that will emphasize outreach to evangelicals. He said, “People of faith are in the Democratic Party including me.”
Listen to this line. Obama stated, “As I travel around this state, I don’t get asked about gay marriage, I don’t get asked about abortion, I get asked ‘How can I find a job that allows me to support my family?’ I get asked, ‘How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy.’” (Taken from a reply to questions asked during the Ill. Senate campaign)
We are deeply troubled, but not surprised at the Senator’s remarks. One would only have to look at Obama’s consistent support and advocacy for the gay agenda and the abortion industry to understand. As a longtime activist for children in the womb (the most discriminated against segment of our society) and proponent for family values, I am horrified at this man’s voting record. Anytime Planned Parenthood gives you a 100% rating, all Americans should cringe in fear because they are the leading abortion provider in the nation.
Each day, 1452 African Americans are murdered by abortion, 4,000 children over all.
There have been over 15 million African American children dismembered in the womb by the abortion holocaust and as many women victimized.
As an elected official, should anyone have to ask you about abortion to make it your concern?
Marriage, since the 1970s, is down 17% in America and in the African Community it’s down 34%, which is twice the national average.
Should Barack Hussein Obama again have to wait until someone asks him about the fundamental building block of all society? Shouldn’t he protect the sanctity of marriage? The truth is, someone has asked and how he has answered the question wasabysmal.
The question was asked of Obama, should the heinous act of partial birth abortion be outlawed in America? Twice Sen. Obama answered no! When he was asked if a child, who might miraculously survive the sentence of death by abortion, be protected from an abortion doctor after surviving? Sen. Obama said no! (See Born Alive Victims Protection Law.) Has he no conscience? Is he misinformed on the facts of these barbaric practices? His response to these questions is not indicative of the Black community’s beliefs, and certainly shows a low degree of conscience and moral fiber.
These six things the lord hates, yea seven are an abomination unto him, a proud look, a lying tongue and hands that shed innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:17)
There is no candidate running for the office of the presidency with a worse record than Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. His hands have aided and abetted the abortion industry’s slaughter of the innocent and no other community is affected by it more than the African American community. It’s an industry that targets Afro-Americans for profit at the expense of our children’s lives and the pain of Black women.
This charade has been quite a production. It is now playing and coming to a theater near you!
Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his letter from a Birmingham jail, “The early church put an end to such evils as infanticide (infant killing).”
From a jail in Birmingham, AL, without any other source of reference but his heart and the Bible, Martin wrote to some Bishops and Pastors who were not in favor of the demonstrations he was leading. They felt that it was counter productive and not in the best interest of the Negro people. Martin Luther King, Jr. felt quite differently, he chided church leaders for their reluctance to join him in the struggle for freedom. King’s reference to infanticide pointed to the legality of infant killing under Roman law in the first century. Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed to the practice of Christians to rescue babies left on the side of the road to die, because their parents did not like their complexion, eye color, hair color or viewed the child as an inconvenience (sound familiar?) First century Christians rescued those babies and raised them as their own children.
The early Church defied unjust laws even when the consequences could have meant their own death for doing so. Oh, if that kind of love and courage could be demonstrated today by our leadership, it would begin to heal our land.
Sen. Obama has written, “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters ashospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex – nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the sermon on the mount.”
Sen. Obama, did you say obscure? That would tend to lead unlearned listeners to believe that the Bible is vague or obscure on the subject of homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nearly half of the 32 verses in the first chapter of the New Testament book of Romans were dedicated to warning the early church about sexual perversion. The Apostle Paul warned that perverse thinking and the habits they create were due to the fact that “they did not want to retain God in their knowledge.” That verse truly reflects much of the cast in the Democrat Party.
I would like to ask Sen. Obama the question, “How obscure is this verse?”
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind: it is an abomination.
That sounds pretty definitive to me.
It would appear to me that Sen. Obama as well as many others shun and ignore the obvious and cloak the true causes of our problems.
African Americans make up 12% of the population, but account for over 50% of all new cases of HIV. African American women account for a staggering 68% of all newly diagnosed HIV positive women in the United States. These women primarily contracted HIV from heterosexual sex. Now, with that said, 60% of all new AIDs cases in America will be the result of the violation of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27 (men having sex with men).
Martin Luther King, Jr., who never marched one step for “Gay Rights,” said, “The contemporary church is often a weak ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power of the average community is consoled by the churches silent and often vocal sanctions of things as they are.”
You have heard my review of this masterful political production concerning Sen. Obama and a few of his cast. There is undoubtedly more to come.
Suffice it to say, the prospect of Sen. Barack Hussein Obama becoming President of the United States poses a real threat to African Americans.
Cathy Cohen, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, conducted a survey tracking the attitudes of nearly 1,600 young people of all races nationwide. The professor did one of the most comprehensive studies with the focus on African Americans 15-25 ever performed.
The survey shows that young African-Americans are more conservative than their white counterparts when it is comes to same-sex marriage and abortion. There has been consistent data that shows African-Americans are pro-life and oppose same-sex marriage. An Obama presidency would certainly not reflect Afro-American youth or the nation he’d be leading. In fact, his position on these issues would be ensuring their present destructive trend.
Black Enterprise magazinedid a survey in which 58% of its participants viewed the NAACP’s pro-choice stance as wrong. As a role model, Barack Hussein Obama would be stirring the cauldron of confusion and mixed emotion. Many people would be happy for his success, because he is black, but vexed by his immoral position on the critical issues.
Obama’s use of the presidential bully pulpit would be a boost for the culture of death and the homosexual agenda.
As President, there would also always be the threat of a veto of any significant pro-life or pro-family legislation. Additionally, Obama would undoubtedly nominate pro-abortion justices to the US Supreme Court, which could etch Roe v. Wade into stone for generations.
Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Any success achieved at the expense of our children is no success.” I and many other African-Americans long to see the day of an African-American President, but not at the expense of our children and our values.
Remember, all significant social change which empowered and eradicated injustice has come from the Church not congress, from Pastors not the president. Politicians often join in the cause later, but social reform always starts in the Church. To keep this better in mind I will close with another quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from a Birmingham Jail:
There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced as they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
God help us to be a thermostat.
Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. is the Senior Pastor of New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, NJ. He hosts “The Urban Prophet” which takes the pro-life, pro-family message into the urban areas.
Rev. Childress is the author of “No Shepherd’s Cry.” Pastor Childress and his book were recently featured on the 700 Club hosted by CBN’s Pat Robertson.
Pastor Childress is joyously married to Regina Childress and has four children: Clenard, Thomas, Tonya and Tia.
One heartbeat away from the presidency.,,,,,,,,
Very scary indeed for a candidate with a 4-year degree in journalism
She has put herself in this position
Don't blame the vultures for her mistakes.
You don't even know his position do you?
@!@
Democrat hasn't won the presidency yet.
Mostly because I can't wait to see what you all have to say when the country is still in shambles with a Democrat behind the wheel. I can't believe you all actually think a Dem in office will help. Entire Congress is Dem right now. What has it done lately?
Senator versus presidency
Sure, I can see where a lot of this would be overlooked while running for a senate position versus president of our country. The higher the position, the more you look into someone's history and that is what separates the boys from the men....
Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency.....sm
Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency
Written by John F. McManus
Wednesday, 26 November 2008 00:40
Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's own records and agendas show the direction they have in mind for the nation.
Without doubt, the election of Barack Obama is historic because he is the first Black American selected by voters for the highest office in the land. Indeed, the election of an African-American to the presidency by a nation with a majority white population may be unprecedented, and the fact that this is possible should be a source of pride for all of us, regardless of whether Obama himself was a good or bad choice.
An articulate and confident young man, Obama's presence in the White House will be welcomed by many. Along with his oratorical skills and appealing vitality, his family will remind older Americans of the John F. Kennedy era when a telegenic and appealing wife and two charming youngsters accompanied the newly elected president into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
What will the Obama presidency be like? Throughout a campaign stretching back for almost two years, the Illinois senator regularly employed the word "change," and the word even morphed into "change we can believe in." The posters, oratory, television ads, and pronouncements of several Obama staffers repeatedly issued unspecified pledges that this new and different candidate would alter the course America was following.
"Blueprint for Change"
But how would America's course be altered? Even though the American people could have read online what an Obama-Biden administration promised, most failed to do so. Much of the agenda, albeit without a lot of detail, is contained in Blueprint for Change, the 83-page document subtitled "Plan for America" issued by the Obama-Biden team. As we shall see, the "change" envisioned by the Blueprint includes more government at home and a continuation of our interventionist foreign policy abroad.
Of course, America has been moving in the direction of more and bigger government for decades, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat has been in the White House. Obama hopes to move us even further in the big-government direction. What kind of change is that?
Even many Americans who recognize that Obama will push for more government at home believe that he will end our interventionist foreign policy because of the opposition he has expressed to the Iraq War. But this conclusion flies in the face of his proposal to transfer troops to Afghanistan (in essence transferring the Iraq War to a different theater) and his support for international arrangements, including expansion of NATO.
Please consider the following positions as they appear in the pages of the revealing "blueprint" document and judge for yourself how much change there will be and whether the recommended "change" would be a good thing. (Comments following each quoted item are ours.)
• "Emergency Economic Plan to Inject Immediate Relief into the Economy." Both Obama and Biden voted for the $700 billion bailout (along with John McCain). More bailouts will likely follow.
• "Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families." Government giving money to everyone, as was done with the 2008 rebate, doesn't solve any problems. These funds either have to be printed (the root cause of inflation) or borrowed, likely from China, which puts our nation's neck in a noose. The interest that is compounding on our already enormous debt is a toxic time bomb. The government will eventually resort to massive inflation to pay the debt or collateralize the debt with American assets; in which case, those now holding our bonds will end up owning America.
• "Invest in the Manufacturing Sector." America's manufacturers need relief from the stifling array of taxes and regulations, and from the steady erosion of the dollar brought on by debilitating inflation, not government handouts that are always followed by government control. A 2006 study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute entitled "Ten Thousand Commandments" found that the federal regulatory burden on U.S. businesses amounted to $1.13 trillion. This burden is killing American businesses, productivity, innovation, and jobs.
• "Create 5 Million New Green Jobs." This will be done, says the Blueprint, by investing "$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy," etc. In other words, politicians and bureaucrats would create government jobs and subsidize private-sector jobs that should be financed by the private sector (and would be if they were economically viable). Government should get out of the way and let free Americans create jobs.
• "Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank." This promise includes an infusion of $60 billion more in federal spending.
• "Give the Federal Reserve Greater Supervisory Authority." The Federal Reserve, which already wields enormous, unconstitutional powers, is a destructive engine of inflation and should hardly be given greater authority. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has recommended, it should be abolished, not enhanced.
• "Pressure the World Trade Organization to Enforce Trade Agreements." Granting the UN's WTO even more authority is another step toward global governance. The WTO is already exercising judicial jurisdiction over sovereign nations, overruling national laws and legislatures, including the laws and the Congress of the United States. Congress and President Bush have weakly protested these usurpations — and then meekly accepted them.
• "Guarantee Affordable, Accessible Health Care for Every American." Healthcare costs have risen dramatically because of already existing government intervention. A national healthcare system would swell the cost while making healthcare hard to obtain, as such plans have done everywhere they have been instituted.
• "Barack Obama has fought for comprehensive immigration reform." Ultimately, what this means is amnesty for as many as 20 million illegal aliens in our nation.
• "High Quality Zero-to-Five Education." The Obama plan actually calls for "early care and education for infants in a Zero to 5 Plan," more government for K-12, federal support for afterschool programs, and more grants for those who move on to college.
• "Double our annual investment in foreign assistance ... to $50 billion.... Invest at least $50 billion [annually] by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS." With record deficits and a soaring National Debt, America is, in effect, giving away borrowed money.
The above constitute only a sampling of the pledges for more programs, more spending, and more government powers contained in the 83 pages of the Blueprint for Change. And the official Obama-Biden Internet website provides several hundred more pages of details, all pointing toward plans for a vast expansion of the federal government. Less than a week after the election, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun (R) told an audience in his district the president-elect shows "signs of being a Marxist." Perhaps Broun had read the Obama-Biden Blueprint, a rather obvious call for socialism in the United States. And perhaps Broun knows that, in addition to Marx's well-publicized association with communism, Karl Marx is also the godfather of socialism.
Although he didn't mention his own party, we should point out that Rep. Broun's criticism of Obama's apparent Marxist bent applies also to many Republicans. In fact, in October, President Bush and many Republican members of Congress rolled out the Socialist Express to push through the bailout package. Take it from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist, who congratulated Bush for joining the socialist club, and then chided him and his allies for applying a double standard. "How many times have they criticized me for nationalizing the phone company?" he asked. "They say, 'The state shouldn't get involved in that.' But now they don't criticize Bush for having nationalize[d] ... the biggest banks in the world. Comrade Bush, how are you?"
Expanding the UN
The United Nations Association of the United States is the most determined promoter of the UN within our nation. Early in 2008, its leaders sent a questionnaire to all presidential candidates. Barack Obama displayed his strong commitment to the world body and to its various sovereignty-compromising programs in his responses, some of which follow:
• "No country has a greater stake in a strong United Nations than the United States."
• "I have pledged to create a [UN-promoted] cap on carbon emissions in the United States."
• "I fully support the [UN] Millennium Development Goals."
In the year 2000, the 189 member nations of the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals, a program of eight goals to aid developing countries. Our share of funding these goals could total hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few years. Senator Barack Obama introduced S. 2433 in 2007. Labeled the "Global Poverty Act," this proposal seeks to require our nation to "achieve the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of the people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than one dollar per day." Five months later, Senator Biden offered minor amendments to the bill as he co-signed it. Obviously, these two senators — and the handful of others they have enlisted to back their proposal — believe the American people should pony up enormous sums of money sought by the UN in another program that would empower the world body and further enrich corrupt foreign dictators while doing little to improve the plight of the world's poor.
Based on their stated positions and track records, it is reasonable to expect that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the team they will select to staff the new administration won't even consider less government and a mind-your-own-business foreign policy to be options. Their agenda, if implemented, would speed the growth of the federal government, accelerate the surrender of America's independence, and hasten our nation down the path toward submergence in what internationalists euphemistically refer to as "global governance" by various supranational institutions, of which the UN, the WTO, and the IMF are among the most noteworthy. For more information about the power brokers who have helped formulate Obama's agenda and who will be running the Obama-Biden administration, see "Behind the Obama Agenda."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/543-looking-ahead-to-the-obama-presidency
Celebrate Obama's presidency!
In "celebration" of this stimulus and a month of his presidency, let's see if Obama has lived up to his promises. I will let you score your president.
Here are the 7 promises.
1. Make government open and transparent.
2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)
4. No more secrecy.
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.
6. You’ll know what’s in it.
7. We will put every pork barrel project online.
Obama is rich in his own right - not just the presidency -
he can spend money any way he pleases. Believe me, if I had that kind of money, I would be going to broadway too!
You are in an even worse position than I am...
at least my mortgage is a fixed rate mortgage with a reasonable interest rate - not as low as what is being offered to those who are defaulting, but not too bad in the grand scheme of things. So--good luck to you!!!
Sorry - you can't diagnose my position
I live in a blue collar neighborhood - those who lose their jobs - start scrapping metal or cutting wood or whatever they can do to earn a living. They do not sponge off of society. Their kids go without medical care as a result, but the whole family does. They also hunt to put meat on the table. I go into the cheap grocery stores to shop - rarely do I see food stamps being used. My husband is a white collar worker who was just laid off. Wehave to decide between COBRA and the mortgage. I have cancer, so I guess COBRA wins. Please research welfare and find out, REALLY, what a small percentage of our population is on the dole. Welfare is just another propaganda tool. I know - I went into social work.
Not in a position to give more
The problem is not everyone is in a position to give MORE but the government doesn't take that into acct. We will all be paying more to the government eventually. Who else will be paying this money back?
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.
This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.
Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout
Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.
Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.
Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.
He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.
For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
"The wisdom of the Clinton Presidency..."
ohhhhh to quote reville guffaw guffaw GUFFAW guffaw lol
your msg. "American Presidency is an exec. role"
nm
What is the one thing you want an Obama presidency to accomplish?
Mine is curbing illegal immigration.
Bush Presidency - eight years in eight minutes
I watch Olbermann. Sometimes I agree with him. Sometimes I don't.
However, last night he hit it into the park with his attempt to review what Bush did in the last eight years into eight minutes; he ran over time a little bit because there was so much to say.
I would strongly urge anyone who is not too busy whining, moaning, groaning, hating and raging about Obama -- anyone who is truly interested in the future of America -- to watch this, from beginning to end -- especially at the end (since this is done chronologically, not by matter of importance).
THESE are the reasons people voted for Obama. THESE are the reasons that Obama supporters cannot understand why Bush worshippers still support him and reject the man who might undo the wreckage of Bush.
BUSH is the man who claimed to have a direct line to GOD. Obama never claimed anything of the sort; if he had, I probably would not have voted for him for that very reason -- because it creeped me out so much when Bush did it. So the assertion that Obama supporters are "worshippers" is ridiculous, when, in fact, it seems that those who still support Bush (the closest thing to the Anti-Christ that I'VE ever seen) are the ones who seem to think Bush is some sort of god.
Please watch every single SECOND of this video. It will give you just a taste of the grueling task ahead of Obama in trying to correct all the damage that Bush has done. We may, in fact, never know the full extent of the damage because Bush (as is mentioned in the video) has "exempted" himself from the Presidential Records Act.
THIS is why every truly honest, patriotic, honorable American who voted for Obama is so relieved he won. Not so much "happy" -- but RELIEVED -- hoping (yes, HOPING) that our country may once again resemble the USA that once held respect throughout the world, the USA where hard work was once rewarded, the USA where families could afford to feed their children, and the USA where one's ability to obtain something as basic as healthcare wasn't only limited to the wealthy. I'm not naive enough to believe this can all be fixed in four (or even eight) years, because Bush has been like a four-year-old sociopath that was armed with Daddy's credit card, an AXE and an arrogant giggle, each of which he used to its full capacity, and that's a LOT to clean up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28699663
This will be a very effective presidency! This is GREAT !!! read more sm
President Obama just announced that the pay of top White House employees is being frozen. The Associated Press says it will affect those in positions paying more than $100,000 a year.
"All of you are committed to building a more responsible government," Obama told top staff at a meeting now underway at the White House.
"Families are tightening their belts and so should Washington," Obama added.
The president also announced he's about to sign new ethics rules designed to restrict lobbying by current staff after they leave the administration.
Update at 2:55 p.m. ET: The White House just put out this statement about the actions the president took today.
Update at 1:31 pm. ET: "What a moment we are in," Obama also said. "What an opportunity we have to change this country."
Update at 1:28 p.m. ET: The AP adds that about 100 White House aides will be affected.
Update at 1:25 p.m. ET: Obama also announced he is directing federal agencies to be more open, in part by returning to pre-Bush administration policies regarding the Freedom of Information Act.
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," he said.
He was sworn into his current position
using a Koran, not the Bible. He refuses to honor our flag because it is against his religion. He will ruin this country from the inside out if elected. The phrase "One nation under God" will be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance. Think about that!
Whoever gets the position will have a whale of a job to clean up. sm
Our troops are stretched so thinly worldwide that homeland security is compromised. Ya gotta hear some of the older vets talking strategy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJk6MeBx54
I stand by my position. Isn't that partly what
the VP is for. I am glad that McCain thinks he needs to be in DC, but let Palin take over for a few days.
Don't be ridiculous, of course the financial crisis is more important. But, why can't he do the debate 1 night. It is just 1 night. Let them debate the economy instead, I am sure Americans would love to hear what they have to say about it right now.
It's not an attack, it's a statement of position.
the concept I take exception to. I want my health insurance benefits to stay in the "pre-tax" column on my pay stub. In fact, I want all my benefits to stay in that column. Under McCain's plan, I would pay tax on my benefit out of every single paycheck and the US treasury gets the use of that money until filing time rolls around. I need my money to stay in my house, not theirs during the course of the year. I don't want a percentage of my health insurance benefits to be used to bail out predatory lenders (under McCain's new Resurence Plan) on subprime mortgages. I want it to be used to buy groceries, pay for gas and pay bills. The slippery slope comes into play the next time they need to go looking for another way to screw over taxpayers and they start to monkey with the 14% rate. Thanks but no thanks. No second grade math lession needed here.
Difference being if elected, SP will be in a position to
nm
For key cabinet position, just where would you suggest
One key element of bringing change to Washington in my estimation would be to take US leadership one step beyond the "old guard" of the Boomer generation. I can say this with impunity since I am referring to my own generation. In any case, this is a bit of a tricky proposition since that means Obama would need to focus on younger individuals born in the early to mid 1960s and beyond, with ages approximately 46-48 or younger. These individuals would have reached their adult years and started building their professional careers AFTER the Carter administration. How many democratic presidents have we had since the Carter administration?
With the selection of KEY positions, it is imperative that Obama appoint people with senior-level experience. Stop to ponder for a moment, the appointments that have been made thus far.
1. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, by all measures a "Clinton person."
2. Atty General Eric Holder served in the US Justice Dept during Ford, Carter and Reagan, who appointed him DC Superior court Judge in 1988, a post he held until 1993 before Clinton appointed him US atty in DC, later becoming Clinton's Deputy Atty General. In other words, 17 years of his experience was gained in service to the 3 former presidents prior to the Clinton appointments.
3. Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag, Director of Congressional Budget Office under W and served on Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton.
4. Senior Advisor Pete Rouse - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and W.
Holder served under 3 different presidents prior to Clinton, Orszag's onlyh appointed position was under W and Rouse servced under 5 other presidents before Clinton. My question then is why is it that all of these people are suddenly "Clinton people?" Even if they all were, where would you expect Obama to look for his cabinet appointees...retired officials from the Carter administation perhaps? Would Reganites deliver Change? How about those Bush people (I am so sure).
I have no doubt that there will be appointees with roots in the republican camp, but please note that we are talking about only 4 choices at this point in time, 3 of which DO have ties to administrations other than Clinton's. Besides that, the most key factor is that all of these appointees will be serving under a DIFFERENT leader with a strong mandate for change, equipped with favorable legislative bodies. Perhaps it would be wise to reserve judgment on ALL of this until AFTER they take office and actually start doing their jobs, ya think?
He disqualified himself from the position by his own testimony.... sm
Didn't he? Or was that someone else talking?
Who can believe anything this guy says?
Any republican in his position would be run out of Washington.
Extremely poor judgment from President Obama on this one.
Had dog catcher been an elected position
I'm sure she would have run for it. Well, she's ''moved on up to the big house'' now. She is a co-sponsor of Card Check and a real party hack. This is my representative. Abandon all hope!
I'm just voting for him because he is the lesser of the two evils who are running for presidency
x
And you think that terrorist attack was planned in just a few months during his presidency?
nm
Take a 2nd look. She has more executive
nm
WHy is disagreeing with a position viewed as bullying?
Your response is much more bullying....self-righteous and pompous I think were your words...
It is not MY party. I am not a Republican. This country would be much better off if everyone, both sides, put country first and not the party.
That being said...it were an important issue to debate, it should not have had to have a pregnant 17-year-old girl "spark it." All I am saying is, regardless of that, it is a choice whether to continue to bring into the spotlight a candidate's child for political fodder.
The point is...it was not an issue before 17-year-old pregnant Bristol. But now it is, a way to keep that constantly in the forefront. That is the choice some on the left have made.
All I am saying is...while I am sure you think it is justified, there are many who will not. And that is ALL I am saying.
Wow, is this the type of person we want in a position of power? (nm)
xx
And where is that written, if you are conducting the job or position for which you ran with integrit
where is it written that you give away your right to privacy? Are you kidding? I am so sick of the media mentality that just because someone has chosen a profession, such as politics, acting, the arts, etc., that EVERYTHING is fair game, you can never have a private moment in your entire life (or term), you may be hunted, haunted, treated like an animal in a zoo.....yes, you are a public figure, but still a human being with rights, and that means a right to privacy. To think otherwise is mercenary, cold, and totally out of touch with humanity. Actors play parts to entertain us, give us pleasure, help us escape, but they can never ever escape the papparazzi at any time, when off camera??? What a cruel and voyeuristic society we have become!!!!
She's the only one of the four with executive experience
Obama has little experience even as a legislator, but you believe this smart woman with executive leadership experience is less qualified to be president should it come to that? No, I don't think so.
She already has more executive experience than your guy...
and he is 1st chair. All those negatives you posted are positives for a lot of people. THe state ethics committee investigation is not over yet, and frankly, a state trooper who tasers an 11-year-old (oh he asked me to) SHOULD be fired in my humble opinion. And a state trooper who threatens the life of his estranged wife and her parents should not be wearing the uniform of a state trooper. But that is just me, I guess.
I am sure the people of Alaska are thrilled to hear that the Democrat supporters of Obama are marginalizing them into nothing because they have smaller population than Austin, Texas.
All this kind of post does is show how petty, vindictive and mean people can get when their backs are up against the wall and they think they might lose.
The DNC should have thought about all this before they took on the Clintons. Howard Dean messed up big time.
Executive experience is a big zero
You showed up late today so rather than repeating everything that has already been said on this imponent executive experience media mantra thing, please catch up on your reading. Also, the issue of her not running has been exercised in light of the very real possibility that she would be positioned to take over sooner rather than later. Besides, the Bimbos Unite! cult sure seems to think she is running for president. You will notice just how absent McCain has been from the spotlight since yesterday morning. The notion that our party is somehow fractured or not strongly unified is more of your delusional thinking. McCain took care of that when he decided to insult most of thinking women in this country by selecting a token female he met once to save his sinking ship. Strategy is lame, transparent and has actually created an angry backlash from Hillary supporters and women in general that will make Hurricane Gustav look like a a flushing toilet. You got no idea what you are talking about when you try to analyze the democratic party but please do us all a favor and continue to feed your delusions. theonly thing that's going to come back and bite bigtime is what's-her-name calling Hillary a whiner and McCain calling US economic refugees whiners. We do agree on one thing here. Sweeeeet!
You must have EXECUTIVE experience
nm
Executive travel
Executives who travel for business on private jets may actually be doing something line buy or sell a product, bring in revenue, broker a deal that will create jobs.
Politicians traveling that way are mostly being seen. Example: Was it truly necessary for O to fly to the Southwest just to sign a bill and stand in front of some solar panels? He doesn't have pens in the oval office? Does Pelosi really rate a government plane to get her back and forth to California? Not sure if she actually got the privilege, but know she requested it because she is sooooo important to the nation, being assistant president and all, that she has to travel efficiently.
Before you jump all over me with 'Bush did....' yes, I know, they ALL get face time this way. That was then, this is now. If we're supposed to be going 'green' how about cutting out politicians' needless self-promoting travel on our dime?
Her position was not eliminated - it says she is on unpaid leave of absence. nm
x
Obama's take on his own executive experience...
Obama: Running campaign counts as executive experience
Tuesday September 2, 2008
Talk about resume padding! He compares his experience running a campaign (which, btw should come as a surprise to his campaign manager) with her experience as mayor and totally ignores her experience as governor and Cooper lets him get away with it.
COOPER: And, Senator Obama, my final question -- your -- some of your Republican critics have said you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this. They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska.
What's your response?
OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year.
You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.
So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.
Maybe he should practice this response a little more before he plants it with another reporter.
BTW, Hot Air has the unedited transcript if you are interested in how he really sounded when he answered the question. He is quite liberal in his use of "uh." For someone with a reputation of being articulate, he sure uses a lot of them.
Update: Here's the McCain campaign's response:
"For Barack Obama to argue that he's experienced enough to be president because he's running for president is desperate circular logic and it's laughable. It is a testament to Barack Obama's inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin's executive experience managing a budget of over 10 billion dollar dollars, and more than 24,000 employees." --Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008
McCain has no EXECUTIVE experience
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
She does have more executive experience than McCain has...
McCain has no executive experience. None of them but Palin do. McCain does have more experience in the Senate and with foreign affairs, the military, et al, than Obama has. Much more. Those are the two running against each other. Joe Biden also has more experience than Obama has. Obama has the least experience of the 4. Obama has been a state senator and has spent most of his US senate career running for President. He is the least experienced of the 4, and he will be in the chair day 1. I don't feel real good about that possibility, especially in the war on terror. I really don't think he gets it. Talking to O'reilly about radical islam he kept saying something about factions, and you have to figure out what faction you are dealing with...that is talking like a senator. Have a committee and discuss it for 6 months. We can't afford that, in my opinion. I agree with Biden, and I don't mean to make fun, I'm serious...he is not ready for the job, IMO. That is one reason I am not voting for Obama.
Very funny. NOT! Executive experience!
nm
She has more executive experience than the #1 candidate on the other ticket...
she is, in fact, the only one of the 4 who has executive experience. SHE is not running for President. Obama IS. You decide where you would rather have limited experience, the #1 seat or the #2 seat. But of course i know the answer. ITs ok if he doesn't have any executive experience...after all, he has biden to fall back on, right?
As far as John McCain...he has more years of experience as a senator than Obama, he has years more experience in foreign policy than Obama, he does not bow to the Republican Party, Obama does bow to the Democratic party, McCain has bucked the Republican Party, Obama has never and I would guess will never buck the Democratic party, it is clear his first allegiance is there. Both McCain and Palin have demonstrated that their first allegiance is to the American people. She has an 80% favorability rating in Alaska...I am relatively sure 90% of Alaska is not Republican. Obama has never had an 80% rating...well except from NARAL, who gave him 100%. For me, McCain is more experienced and I want someone who is interested in what is best for me, not what is best for his political career and his all-important party.
Executive experience = running a government...
McCain hasn't, Obama hasn't, Biden hasn't. She HAS. Bill Clinton had only been a governor before he was elected President. Double standard alive and well on the left?? Of course it is.
But the fact remains...she has more executive experience than your #1 guy.
That is indisputable. In fact, more than her running mate and your #2. To say she is inexperienced only shines the same light on Barack Obama. That is not a slam, it is a fact.
Yeah, Obama's executive experience
nm
JOHN MCCAIN HAS HAD NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
(Ret) General Wesley Clark
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
Bush creates executive pay loophole.
Right up until the end, Bush is working hard for his "base." I can't wait to see this man leave -- if he leaves. 
Bush Administration created executive pay loophole
John Byrne
Published: Monday December 15, 2008 |
The Bush Administration inserted an eleventh-hour provision into the $750 billion bailout bill to protect executive bonuses, a single sentence that will torpedo efforts to reduce bonuses even as companies slash tens of thousands of jobs and use taxpayer money to gobble up other companies at fire-sale prices.
Pressured by constituents who worried that companies would take government aid and continue to pay their executives eye-popping bonuses, Congress inserted a provision that would penalize companies who took taxpayer money and shelled out outsized bonuses.
But at the last minute, Bush officials insisted on a one-sentence provision that stopped the measure in its tracks, according to congressional aides who spoke to the Washington Post.
The change stipulated that the sanction would only apply to firms that sold mortgage backed securities to the government at auction, which the Bush Treasury Department said would be the method they'd use to infuse troubled companies with bailout cash.
"Now, however, the small change looks more like a giant loophole, according to lawmakers and legal experts" who spoke to Post reporter Amit Paley. "In a reversal, the Bush administration has not used auctions for any of the $335 billion committed so far from the rescue package, nor does it plan to use them in the future. Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives."
"The flimsy executive-compensation restrictions in the original bill are now all but gone," Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, told Paley.
According to Paley, "The final legislation contained unprecedented restrictions on executive compensation for firms accepting money from the bailout fund. The rules limited incentives that encourage top executives to take excessive risks, provided for the recovery of bonuses based on earnings that never materialize and prohibited 'golden parachute' severance pay. But several analysts said that perhaps the most effective provision was the ban on companies deducting more than $500,000 a year from their taxable income for compensation paid to their top five executives."
This amendment to the Internal Revenue Code was the only part of the bailout measure that had an explicit enforcement mechanism.
Bush officials initially opposed executive compensation rules. Banks, in particular, had been taking heat for "golden parachute" cases, where top executives received lavish pay upon their departure even if they'd done a poor job leading their company.
It remains unclear whether the Administration ever intended to limit executive pay -- if perhaps they knew in advance that Treasury didn't intend to buy mortgage assets at auction all along -- as they'd told Congress.
Words in the form of an executive order
If you are content to subscribe in all this voodoo spell casting and foreboding pronouncements to nowhere, be my guest. I prefer to stay grounded in the reality of the moment and give time for the plan to unfold.
Executive power survey by presidential candidates.
In case you haven't seen this article, I am posting the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/?page=2
This is very enlightening for those who want to know their candidates thoughts about executive power.
|
