View topic - Mr. President: Do Your Job! • Redscape

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

29 Nov 2011, 8:29 am

Chris Christie cuts to the heart of the matter: how feeble is it that the President is trying to pretend he can simply stand back and blame the Republicans for doing "nothing" on the economy?

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ripped President Obama for the failure of the debt supercommittee calling the president "a bystander in the Oval Office" in comments Monday.

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

Christie was contrasting the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements, saying both stemmed from "anger" with government's inability to respond to the financial crisis. But while Christie said "both parties deserve blame for what's going on in Washington, D.C.," he pointed the finger squarely at Obama for failing to strike a budget deal.

“Why the president of the United States refuses to do this is astonishing to me. If he wanted to run for Senate again and just be 1 of a 100, I’m sure he could have gotten reelected over and over again in Illinois,” Christie said. “He’s the one in Washington and he’s got to get something done here. And it’s not good enough just to say, ‘Well, I’ll get it done after the election.’"

Just because he's from Chicago, does Mr. Obama get to use the Cubs' mantra: "Wait 'til next year"?

He can say "Republicans won't" do this or do that, but what plans does he actually have on the table? The only "real" proposal he has made is one that he and his campaign said was "take it or leave it." Since then, all he's done is caterwaul and point fingers. The supercommittee was doomed so he wasn't going to get involved?

It may be good politics; time will tell. Two things it is not: good governance and good leadership.

Obama seems bent on doing one job for the next year: getting re-elected.

I think he is sending a clear message the electorate dare not miss: elect me AND a Democratic Senate and House or expect NOTHING for the next 5 years--unless you elect a Republican President, House, and Senate. Since we know Democrats are highly unlikely to take the House, and unlikely to maintain the Senate, Obama should just give up. After all, if something is "doomed to failure," he doesn't like to be involved.

: geojanes; Dignitary; Posts: 3490; Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

29 Nov 2011, 10:36 pm

Doctor Fate wrote: he doesn't like to be involved.

I am now considering that Obama is more culturally Hawaiian than I ever thought.

5-years ago, we had a job in Hawaii and had to work with a lot of Hawaiians on the big Island: I don't think you could find two more culturally different groups in America than New Yorkers and Hawaiians. Hawaiians are the most non-confrontational people in the country. Passive aggressiveness is an art form there. Mainlanders never quite knew what was going on because no one would give them straight answers. The more I see of Obama, the more I see a Hawaiian way of doing things, which often means not doing anything when there is a lot of conflict involved.

Last edited by geojanes on 30 Nov 2011, 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

30 Nov 2011, 7:24 am

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote: he doesn't like to be involved.

I am now considering that Obama is more culturally Hawaiian than I ever thought.

5-years ago, we had a job in Hawaii and had to work with a lot of Hawaii's on the big Island: I don't think you could find two more culturally different groups in America than New Yorkers and Hawaiians. Hawaiians are the most non-confrontational people in the country. Passive aggressiveness is an art form there. Mainlanders never quite knew what was going on because no one would give them straight answers. The more I see of Obama, the more I see a Hawaiian way of doing things, which often means not doing anything when there is a lot of conflict involved.

All of that may be correct. However, at a time when we have so many problems and such a divide between R and D, can we afford a passive-aggressive (I would argue he's more of a pure passive, but leaving that aside) President? I think we need a problem-solver, not someone whose main strength seems to be an ability to not get his hands dirty.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 15994; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

30 Nov 2011, 7:41 am

Isn't avoiding dirt a key asset in the journey to the White House?

: Archduke Russell John; Dignitary; Posts: 3239; Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

30 Nov 2011, 8:50 am

danivon wrote:Isn't avoiding dirt a key asset in the journey to the White House?

I don't think it is avoiding the dirt but rather being seen to handle the exposure of the dirt in a decisive manner. Nobody is dirt free and most people realize that.

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7390; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

30 Nov 2011, 9:33 am

Those who are afraid to get dirty are often afraid of the work that goes with it. I am certain that is what DF meant, not the avoidance of scandal. Of course, you knew that. Danivon.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

30 Nov 2011, 9:53 am

bbauska wrote:Those who are afraid to get dirty are often afraid of the work that goes with it. I am certain that is what DF meant, not the avoidance of scandal. Of course, you knew that. Danivon.

To clarify for anyone not familiar with the metaphor: to get one's hands dirty can mean doing something unsavory. However, it can also mean simply to get involved in a process. For example, one cannot expect positive results in gardening without a willingness to get one's hands dirty.

to involve yourself in all parts of a job, including the parts that are unpleasant, or involve hard, practical work Unlike other bosses, he's not afraid to get his hands dirty and the men like that in him.

Mr. Obama has fairly consistently been a "hands off" manager. That only works when the operation is functioning properly. However, he says, all the time, that Congress is not working. There are two approaches. One is to stand back and say, "Look! They're not doing their job!" The other is to sit down with the disparate parts of the "corporation" (government in this case) and bring about consensus.

The President has obviously decided on the former course of action. My contention is that this is NOT leadership.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 15994; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

30 Nov 2011, 10:48 am

bbauska wrote:Those who are afraid to get dirty are often afraid of the work that goes with it. I am certain that is what DF meant, not the avoidance of scandal. Of course, you knew that. Danivon.

Well, yes and no. Romney is clearly unpopular among the 'base', partly because of his healthcare reforms in Mass which are not that far off what ended up being the result of the national changes.

It strikes me that politicians have to walk a fine line between being seen to make tough decisions (good) and being seen to make the wrong decision (bad). Similarly, they also have to balance ideological purity and/or party loyalty against pragmatic compromise and/or dealmaking than moves things forward.

Sure, scandal (avoidance of, and dealing with) are another aspect of this.

But I do wonder, frankly, if what you end up with after 2012 is a Republican President and House, but still a Democrat Senate or a split Senate (with two independents holding the balance), will we really see any change in progress. I get the feeling that both sides are entrenched, and that those who are open to compromise are going to get demonised by the extreme ends. It's all very well blaming Obama for not solving the Congressional impasse, but the fact is that there's a Congressional impasse to start with.

And I always had the impression that the whole point of the 3-way split between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary meant that if a President were to become too 'hands-on' and try to 'manage' Congress - which is what happens in the corporate world to subordinates, not equals - he'd be accused of over-reach. Indeed, when he proposes things that the opposition dislike, he's casitigated.

But hey, at least it gives Steve yet another opportunity to open a thread addressing Obama (as if he reads Redscape!) and launch an attack. It's going to be a very long year...

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7390; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

30 Nov 2011, 11:37 am

I disagree with your perception of the coming electoral results. I do anticipate the House remaining in Republican hands as well as the Presidency (Agreeing with you). However, I believe the Senate will be 51R, 48D and 1I (Caucusing with the Dems)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html

I come to this conclusion based upon the Republicans taking MA, MT, FL, WI; and perhaps VA and NV as well.

Will it change much regardless who is in? I guess that is why there is so much angst about Romney. Will I vote Romney? I don't know...

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

30 Nov 2011, 11:50 am

bbauska wrote:I disagree with your perception of the coming electoral results. I do anticipate the House remaining in Republican hands as well as the Presidency (Agreeing with you). However, I believe the Senate will be 51R, 48D and 1I (Caucusing with the Dems)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html

I come to this conclusion based upon the Republicans taking MA, MT, FL, WI; and perhaps VA and NV as well.

Will it change much regardless who is in? I guess that is why there is so much angst about Romney. Will I vote Romney? I don't know...

There is virtually no chance Dem's maintain the Senate. The biggest problem facing them is that more Dem seats are up for election than GOP seats. The second problem is that there are a number of Democrats in typically Red (or purple) States facing election. North Dakota is a lock for Republicans. I believe Nebraska will flip and that Montana, Virginia, and Florida will flip.There are a number of others that seem likely. The only Republican that seems in trouble to me is Scott Brown. And, if the Dems nominate Warren, I think he wins.

The bigger problem: if Obama does not win, I think things are likely to get much worse for Democrats in the Senate. It is not inconceivable for the GOP to have between 57 and 60 Senators.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

30 Nov 2011, 3:00 pm

Interesting conversation because, from a different angle, it comes to a similar conclusion: he's not doing his job . . . because he doesn't like politics.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Tina, what has happened to this president, the president from hope and change? What has happened?

TINA BROWN: Well it's so interesting. I think that Obama doesn't like his job, actually. I think that he is genuinely of a professioral disposition in the sense that I think that he's interested in chewing over the pros and cons, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like power and he doesn't know how to exercise power. And I think knowing how to exercise power is absolutely crucial. He doesn't understand how to underpin his ideas with the political gritty, granular business of getting it done. And that kind of gap has just widened and widened and widened. And so that every time there is a moment, a window where he can jump in, like something like a Simpson-Bowles as well, he just doesn't do it. He hangs back at crucial moments when you have to dive through that window.

SCARBOROUGH: And regardless of your ideology, it is very safe to say, I think most people would agree: LBJ he is not, Bill Clinton, he is not, when it just comes to understanding how to make Washington work.

MIKE BARNICLE: It appears off of what Tina just said, you just said, it appears that you could make a case that Barack Obama doesn't like politics.

BROWN: Right. I absolutely feel that.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Well who would today? I mean, I think it's great that --

SCARBOROUGH: Oh come on. If you don't like medicine, don't be a doctor. If you don't like politics, don't put yourself out there to run the free world, Mika.

BRZEZINSKI: You know what? Politics today need to be changed.

SCARBOROUGH: Stop the apologizing!

BRZEZINSKI: I'm not apologizing.

SCARBOROUGH: You're apologizing. [Sarcastically imitates Mika's voice] Who would like politics today? You know what?

BRZEZINSKI: Who would?

SCARBOROUGH: He is running the free world. He better know a lot of people love politics. Bill Clinton loves politics. FDR loved politics. Ronald Reagan loved politics. Great leaders love what they do. So who would love politics?

BROWN: Isn't it really also about, well the other word for politics is just doing what it takes to get it done. Like, one of the things that's interesting about Obama is that he kind of, and I think he does believe in this, that his idea of being a transformative figure who can cross many persuasions and orientations and aisles. And yet when it is actually taken to reaching out and really bringing that in, and trying, I don't think that it really --

SCARBOROUGH: He doesn't do that.

JON MEACHAM: The analogy to 1979 is something we should explore a little bit more, for all the obvious reasons: a technocratic president who thinks he's really smart and perhaps above it all. And a slightly unsettled Republican field. Sounds somewhat familiar.

SCARBOROUGH: It does sound familiar.

I think he likes politics just fine--as long as folks are fawning over him and he doesn't have to work with anyone from an opposing point of view.

11 posts • Page 1 of 1

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Mr. President: Do Your Job!