Another President Who Governs By Polls
Jan 9, 2009 Political
Leadership is the ability to influence people to willingly follow those in charge. A true leader inspires people to do things and to accomplish great deeds. Those who are not leaders just go along to get along. People want to be led. They want someone in charge and they want someone who takes decisions. Well, at least they used to.
Enter Barack Obama. He won the last election by a pretty good margin and he did it by promising that government would take care of every little thing that comes along. Health care, jobs, money if you are poor, it did not matter because Obama and his Democrats would provide it. The people who elected him and who want these things have lost the ability to be independent. They have lost the will to thrive. These are people who feel they are unable to do for themselves so they must rely on government to do it for them.
George Bush, for all his failings, is a man of principle. One can argue about the principles involved but Bush did not use polls to govern. He led this country and he took unpopular stands in order to keep it safe. He will leave with about a 30% approval rating but he is not worried about that because he said that he did not govern by polls, he took decisions he thought were in the best interest of the country. Yes, there is debate as to whether they were in the best interest. Perhaps we can say that Bush was not a great leader because he failed to get people to willingly follow.
Or is that the case? The members of the military, by and large, support him and what we are doing. Perhaps they are not the dumb, uneducated people that John Kerry described but are well informed instead. The people who disapprove of our safety or who blindly follow Barack Obama would be a closer fit to the people John Kerry described, or to paraphrase; If you don’t stay in school and get a good education you become a liberal.
George Bush had high approval ratings and was perceived as doing a good job especially after 9/11. The Democrats and their media wing could not allow this so they tried to systematically destroy the president for political gain. They were successful in 2006 and 2008 but after January 20th they will hove only themselves to blame.
Barack Obama is not a leader. He has never been in charge of anything and his boldest move in office was to vote “present”. Obama, like Clinton before him, relies on polls. His transition team is now using polls and focus groups to try to ram a stimulus package through Congress. This package will undoubtedly cost over a TRILLION dollars and will prolong the recession and might well drive us into a depression.
[note]If spending money is the answer to the financial crisis then we should not be experiencing one because our government has done nothing but spend.[/note]
Relying on focus groups and polls is not leadership. The military would not be effective if leaders took a poll before every mission. Soldiers follow leaders. Outside the military people will follow a leader.
Unfortunately, in hard times people will also follow charismatic individuals who promise them the world. The people somehow lose focus on being independent and follow the person who says what they want to hear. Jim Jones, a charismatic leader, led hundreds of people who were looking for something better, something better he promised to deliver. He got them to drink poisoned Kool-Aid in a mass suicide. This is where we get the term, “drinking the Kool-Aid.”
Many in this country drank the Obama/Democratic/liberal Kool-Aid because the sainted one is a charismatic person who was able to make them believe he has the answers. Have those who consumed that Kool-Aid caused the suicide of this nation?
Obama’s decisions are based on polls which means that he is trying to govern by using popular decisions to get things accomplished. This is a recipe for disaster as Clinton demonstrated. He was not a great president and he brought us the events of 9/11. Clinton diddled while Rome burned.
“Leadership” by poll watching is ineffective and counterproductive. The popular position is not always the correct position and depending upon where polls are taken and who is asked, any preconceived conclusion can be obtained.
Sometimes a true leader must take an unpopular decision. When some serious problem exists, people do not take polls to determine how to handle the issue. However, the sheeple in this nation have decided to put their faith in a Kool-Aid dispensing, charismatic, poll watching, empty suit who could not lead them out of a burning building.
Regardless of what the polls say…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, charisma, leadership, Obama, polls
Obama Meets With US Presidents
Jan 7, 2009 Political
President Elect Barack Obama met with the current president and three past presidents today at the White House. Obama and current President Bush met privately and then the five gathered for a photo op and lunch. The Free Republic has the pictures and some humorous comments.
Protocol dictates that the men put differences aside during these kinds of events so there was no bickering, at least publicly, as the men who have served gave pointers to the man who is about to.
George W. Bush was a gracious host:
George W Bush gave him the warmest welcome. “One message that I have and I think we all share is that we want you to succeed,” he said. “We wish you all the very best, and so does the country.” Telegraph UK
While the men were heading off to eat Bill Clinton commented that he loved the rug in the Oval Office.
Since protocol dictates they act as gentlemen one can only imagine that the head voice inside George W Bush was saying; “Well, after your tenure the other rug was too stained to use.”
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Biden Compares Economy To 9/11
Jan 6, 2009 Political
Joe Biden has a way with words and what he says often makes little or no sense or is a lie. I think his brain aneurysms have diminished his capacity which is why he tells us of visiting diners that have been closed for years. Maybe it is also why he is prone to so many gaffes.
Joe The VP (elect) spoke with members of Congress and he expressed that the economy was much like the crisis of the attacks on 9/11 and that we are at war. The blustery politician has also said, in the past, that we need to pass the economic stimulus or the economy will tank.
Joe met with House members and here is a recap of that meeting:
Vice-president-elect Joe Biden likened the country’s economic crisis to the attacks of 9/11 Monday in a private meeting on Capitol Hill.
“We’re at war,” Biden told congressional leaders of both parties during their sit-down with Barack Obama in the Capitol, according to two sources familiar with the exchange
~snip~
Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander said Biden “was speaking of how after September 11th, that the Congress came together and worked together for the sake of the country, that the Congress worked day and night to accomplish what was necessary. We did it then and we can do it now.” Politico
Of course Biden’s spokesperson had to step in and tell us what Joe really meant. You know it is political BS when someone else has to tell you what a politician meant.
But let’s look at the clarification. Alexander says that Biden was speaking of how we all came together after 9/11 and worked day and night to do what was necessary. I guess this is her way of saying Joe wants Congress, both parties, to work together day and night to pass the stimulus because it needs to be done and is as serious as 9/11.
Isn’t it amazing that when Republicans mention 9/11 they are fear mongering but the Democrats can use it and they are insightful? Isn’t it amazing that they feel free to say they worked day and night after 9/11 to do what had to be done when most of them backtracked on what was done?
In the aftermath of 9/11 a lot of things took place including the authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Most of the Democrats voted for it but later said they were fooled and that they were wrong in their votes blah, blah. I know a lot took place after 9/11 but the more defining actions were the ones that put the men and women of our Armed Forces in harm’s way. Sure, we got stuff that makes it tough to use air for travel but that is nothing compared to what the men and women in uniform have endured.
However, these people backed away from nearly every thing they claim was accomplished on 9/11. Obama was not in the Senate yet so he ran around saying he has always been against the war (except when he was campaigning for Kerry. Then he said he supported it). Biden voted for the war as did Clinton and many others. This was one of the biggest things Obama used against them in the primaries and people fell for it.
Now, Biden wants to invoke 9/11 as if the economy is as urgent as 9/11 and that we should all hold hands and work around the clock to do what needs to be done.
If he is comparing it to 9/11 then I say the Republicans definitely should not go for the stimulus package. After 9/11 Democrats voted with Republicans and then when things got rough, said they were tricked or lied to and that they were sorry they voted for the wars. Then they blamed everything on George Bush (the person who fooled them who is also the one they call stupid) and the Republicans. They were able to make that stick. They then proceeded to call the war a failure and said that it was lost. To this day Obama believes the surge did not work.
What happens if Republicans buy into this and things do not improve? The Democrats will say they were fooled or tricked or lied to and they will say they now are against a stimulus and that George Bush led them to believe it was needed and they were only following what he said so it is all his fault and they could not possibly be the ones, lions and tigers and bears, oh my…
They will then say that Republicans led them to believe a trillion dollars in spending was needed and that the whole issue is the Republicans fault.
I say we don’t need the stimulus. Before they spend our tax money they need to go through the federal budget line by line and start cutting, not with Obama’s scalpel but with a meat cleaver.
It is amazing that Biden would invoke 9/11 and what was accomplished when Democrats vehemently opposed the things accomplished when they believed there was political gain involved. Then again, political gain is why they voted to defend America in the first place.
Joe Biden went to the movies the other night and was only noticed by a few people and this was in a sold out theater. I guess he has to find some way to get in the news.
Mention 9/11, that ought to do it.
Then again, most anything that he says is newsworthy because it is often very wrong.
Joe Biden is the gaff-o-matic.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: 9/11, Bush, democrat, economy, joe biden, republican, war
The Silence Of The Bam
Jan 2, 2009 Opinion, Political
Today is the 7th day of Israel’s war on Hamas and its latest attempt to rid the world of the vermin that shoots rockets and mortars into its country. Barack Obama was on vacation in Hawaii and has yet to comment on the war.
He did state that there was only one president at a time and that is correct but that did not stop him from voicing his desires with regard to the auto company bailouts and the financial meltdown. He was the one who said it would get worse before it got better and expressed his wishes for a change in leadership at the auto makers.
I guess there is truly only one president when the words required are tough and possibly unpopular to the base.
Many of Obama’s supporters are absolutely against the actions taken by Israel. The kind of people who support him are the ones protesting the military response by Israel. Obama is in a tough position so he remains silent.
If he supports Israel’s right to defend itself he will betray those who voted for him who are against the action and if he denounces Israel he will upset many in the Jewish community, a community that voted overwhelmingly for him. He would also send a message to Israel that it cannot count on an Obama administration to have its back.
Obama has a sordid history when it comes to support for Israel. He says that he is in favor of them and what they do but his associates such as Farrakhan and Wright are absolutely anti Semitic. Obama listened to them spew hatred toward Jews for years and never took any action until he decided he wanted to be president (and not until it got too hot to ignore).
Obama used the “only one president” to duck an issue he hopes will be resolved before he takes office. The fact that he will soon take office might be why Israel decided now was as good a time as any to strike back. The country can count on support from President Bush but support form PEBO is not so certain.
Simon and Garfunkel had a song titled “The Sounds of Silence.” In the case of PEBO, the silence speaks louder than words.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: Bush, Israel, Obama, simon and garfunkel, war
Abandoning The Free Market Will Not Fix It
Dec 17, 2008 Political
The economic tough times we are going through are the result of many things. But one thing is certain and that is the tough times are not the result of free market principles. The free market takes care of issues unless there is intervention from outside influences. In this case, the socialistic practices and greed of past administrations and American businesses have combined to cause the problem.
The idea that we need to give people loans for houses they cannot afford is not a free market principle. Forcing companies to pay a minimum wage that government sets based on some arbitrary target rather than the supply and demand of a workforce is not free market. Allowing businesses to hire illegals for well under the market price for a job is not part of the free market. Developing gimmicky investment vehicles in order to turn a quick buck at the expense of others is unethical and not free market. Too much government intervention is not part of the free market and it stifles growth. Combine this with politicians lining their pockets at our expense and we have a recipe for disaster. These are the reasons we got into trouble.
However, President Bush and the Congress failed to see all this and they decided that the best way to fix things was to interfere even more in the free market so that it could go further into chaos. The financial bailout was an intervention that should never have happened. The economic collapse should not have happened but politicians decided that everyone needed a home and investors decided that they needed get rich quick schemes. Then, when it all went south the government got more involved and infused taxpayer money into the mess. The 700 billion dollars has morphed into trillions of dollars in bailouts and there is no end in sight. None of it has helped the economy because the infusion of money only prolongs the pain and delays the inevitable.
President Bush says that he abandoned free market principles to save the economy. He is only partly right. Free market principles were abandoned a long time ago. He is only doing more of the same of what has been going on and it will not help one bit. George Bush is using Socialism to try and fix a free market system when Socialism caused the problem.
Businesses should make it or fail on their own. Bankers and Wall Street tycoons should be left to fail. When they made billions of dollars they did not rush to DC to give money to the government and they did not hand it out to the taxpayer. When they got in trouble they had their hands in taxpayer pockets for help. They should fail. There will always be another ready to step in and take their place. This goes for the Big Three auto makers as well. If they are unable to make it then they should go under and someone can take over and buy them out or they can cease to be.
George Bush saying that he abandoned free market principles to save the economy is like a priest saying he abandoned religion to save people’s souls. It is like saying that we abandon morality to make people more moral. It is ridiculous and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
We need to get BACK to free market principles and let the situation influence the outcome. Employers can pay what the market will bear not what politicians dictate. People who cannot afford their homes can lose them and learn from the experience. Auto makers can file for bankruptcy and renegotiate the contracts with the UAW or they can go under and the union workers can be unemployed.
The reality is, we need to use the free market to get out of this mess and stop creating bigger problems by throwing more and more money down a hole. More money will not help and it will certainly make things worse because we do not have the money and must borrow it. We are going deeper and deeper in debt in a scheme that will not work.
We need to get government out of our business and let the market dictate what business survives and what does not. Darwin had that part right.
George Bush cannot abandon the free market and expect things to change. They will not get better and things will certainly get worse. We only need to look at the Great Depression to see that government intervention allowed it to go on much longer than it should have.
Mr. President, one does not fix the free market by abandoning the free market. One allows it to correct itself as it has done time and again when politicians were not screwing things up.
Sacrificing free market principles is what caused this mess in the first place.
Source:
Breitbart
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: bailout, Bush, free market, socialism, wall street