I know that it seems as if the present troubles will last until we are all old enough to cash in on our retirement (allotting 5 minutes for laughter here), but be of good cheer, fellow Americans-all bad things will end.
I believe that President Obama has been one of the worst presidents ever elected. I feel that his political agenda has greatly harmed this country.
He has less than a thousand days left in the Oval office.
Think about that. No more President Obama ignoring the Constitution. No more of his executive directives bypassing Congress.
It will be good for the country to return to representative government. Even if we are stuck with the same batch that have failed us so far-without President Obama to mess things up, we should see some progress.
Here's how we can 'take the temperature' of the country: start talking about abolishing the 22nd Amendment, and see if the Obama Faithful grab the ball and run with it. I'm guessing NOT.
12 comments:
Just to make life intolerable for you, go look up the 22nd Amendment
yourself. I've already moved on.
Me too. I can hardly wait to help elect the next President Clinton.
Hi Lucia! Nice to see you pop up again, and I hope that you are enjoying a good Winter even if you are 100% wrong about politics.
Of course, I've been wrong the past three elections.
Hilclinton has a tough road ahead of her if she wants to return to the White House. I doubt that she actually will run. Whoever the Demnom,
that person will have to convince most of the country that everything is fine, and that the past eight years have been wonderful under Democratic rule. Unless Colorado and Washington are allowed to sell juana nationwide, there might be a bit too much reality out here for Democratic Phanaticists to overcome.
Anyone wanting to move into the White House has a tough road ahead. Some liberal blogger/pundit reviewing the film MITT remarked that it shows vividly how hard it is now to run for president (or, to a lesser extent, other high public office) because for many months you are not allowed a single moment of being just plain human.
As the saying goes, in politics a week is a long time. We have no idea how the landscape will look a year and a half from now when HRC, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, et al. will have to decide whether to fish or cut bait.
The conventional wisdom on the liberal side right now is that HRC wants to go for it and everyone else would be best served to get out of her way. Do you have a favorite on the GOP side? The liberal CW says Chris Christie now has too much baggage, the Tea Party has soured on Rubio, and Paul, Cruz, and Huckabee aren't electable. (Sarah Palin isn't even on the radar.) My best guess is either Cruz or someone completely out of left field (but not Palin: her ship has sailed). Whoever it is, take heart: you'll always have a Dem to excoriate. Remember how much fun you had with Bill?
Hi Lu-I have no favorites on the Repub side. I will probably have to choose between weak, weaker, and weakest candidates, as the Republicans seem ineffectual to me.
Would I go 'third party'? In a heartbeat. If the Republicans can't find a valid strong contender, I don't feel obligated to vote Republican.
Hilclinton will have a few hurdles in her path, the highest of which might be that she just can't imagine putting herself through what is bound to be a grueling campaign.
She knows how tough it is to run for President. It might be a younger person's game this time on both sides. I can imagine that there are younger hungrier Repubs and Dems who have grown tired of electing Clintons and Bushes.
It's still a long ways off; I might grow an interest by then but for right now...Baseball! I hope that the Bosox can make as good a showing this year. Every season I also cheer for the Cubs to do SOMETHING,and I am always disappointed.
From my other blog:
http://finerdrywit.blogspot.com/2014/03/okay-how-about-this.html
I dunno. HRC is 66. Joe Biden is 71. You are certainly right that running for prez requires almost superhuman stamina. If HRC doesn't run, it's hard to imagine what Dem other than Biden would have the resume and gravitas to make a credible candidate; Andrew Cuomo, maybe.
What exactly do you think Obama should do about Ukraine? He's already said Russia will incur "costs" for violating Ukraine's sovereignty. What do you think those costs should be? Vodka boycott? Nuclear war? Something in between? I'm asking a serious question here; I think there should be costs and consequences, but I honestly don't know what they should be. If the goal is to get Russia to leave Ukraine alone, how do we do that, given that Putin doesn't care what anyone else thinks and no sane person wants nuclear war (and therefore threatening it isn't credible)?
Oh, and speaking of superhuman stamina, the baseball season is way too long. I too would like to see the Cubs win a Series, since the Sox have now completely blown away my expectations by winning it all not once but three times in my lifetime.
Serious question deserves serious answer. With all of the crazy happening daily, I don't know what exactly President Obama 'should' do.
As I posted on my other blog,Obama should NOT follow the example set by Chamberlain, who thought that Hitler could be appeased by allowing him to take over Sudetenland. Chamberlain got Hitler's signature on a peace accord which was broken before the ink was dry.
I know what has worked in the past-
a coalition of nations who stand together facing a tyrant, telling him, "No, you cannot do what you like. The world stands against you."
Diplomacy without the threat of credible force wins nothing. Why would Russia listen to anyone if they know that no one is willing to stop them? It took mobilizing most of the world to stop Hitler and his Axis partners.
I don't know what Obama should do because in my estimation, Russia doesn't care WHAT Obama does. He has weapons he's not willing to use, troops that his pacifism keeps him from being willing to put in harm's way. President Obama is a non-entity.
It goes beyond our borders. Which world leader COULD marshal nations together to stand against Russia? British PM? President of France? Pauley Shore?
That vacuum, that lack of leadership is possibly why Russia has acted at this time. There's nothing to deter them from their path. The globe may have all new boundaries by this time next year.
I don't know what Obama should do because in my estimation, Russia doesn't care WHAT Obama does. He has weapons he's not willing to use, troops that his pacifism keeps him from being willing to put in harm's way
Forget about what Obama is or isn't willing to do; pretend he's a marionette in your hand. What would you have him do? Use those weapons and troops?
By the way, stock markets worldwide plunged yesterday, in no small part because that free market you love so much is dumping Russian investments with all possible speed. Now there's a cost for you; see blog post here (yes, it's a lefty blog: read the post anyway).
Lu: "pretend he's a marionette in your hand. What would you have him do?"
since I have (hypothetical) superpowers including control over the President, here is what I would do:
go back in time to 2008 when the President was inaugurated. At the first opportunity, I would have the president conduct 'saber-rattling' exercises, showing that not only do we have a strong offense, but that we are willing to do what needs doing. There is no viable threat in a bluff. If we expect to hold a leadership role in world affairs, we must prove that we are not only willing, but capable of acting to protect our interests and maintain world peace.
The liberal cry of, "We shouldn't be the world's policeman!" doesn't change that fact that if we do not take on that 'policeman' burden...there is not another country that could. With no policeman, those who would, for example, try to take over another country would have no one to stop them.
Since 2008 President Obama has made it clear that his focus is on peace and there is nothing wrong with wanting peace. But peace never comes through wishing and wanting.
Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick." Without the big stick, without a strong military, one could blather on and on speaking softly but no one would listen.
Tyrants come to power if there is no opposition. Putin may become the
first "Hitler" of the 21st century, though I doubt he will be the last.
Whether it's a President/head of state or a Pastor or even the head of the green stamps committee...there must always be a check and balance system in place or things will become unbalanced.
The "Cold War" was a perfect example of check and balance. We need another cold war, where the threat of opposition is enough to keep nations honest and within their own borders.
From the blog you pointed to:
"Remember the extended period when U.S. conservatives asserted that the entire problem with the American economy was “investor uncertainty” over tax rates caused by Barack Obama’s willingness to cave to GOP budget demands? Want to see some real investor uncertainty? Look at Russia right now."
Typ Lib speak misstating the concerns of Conservatives. Conservatives never were troubled by tax rates caused by Obama's caving on GOP budget demands. He hasn't caved YET. We are concerned that we and future generations are being taxed into subservience to an out of control federal government, but investor uncertainty comes about not from our fears but because of Obama's tax schemes.
Post a Comment