Obama Waited and Came Back With Realities

[_JS]

Which happens to echoe those who demonstrated some leadership.  You might have a point, if he were facilitating a different POV, or one that might not poll so well, but let's face it Js, on both the above scenarios, his leadership was AWOL.  Even a coming out and saying, exactly what you just outlined above, would have been something. 

But he didn't, and it wasn't

I'm not campaigning for Obama. That's for others to decide. I simply wanted to make my point that for some reason in this country leadership is equated with extremely quick and often poorly determined action.

We need action on Georgia. (we didn't...the Russians were right)
We need action on the financial crisis. (And look what that will get is...a purchase of crap debt)

We even had those who wanted immediate action on Iran and Syria. Obama or McCain may or may not be the answer...but waiting for a response doesn't bother me at all. Especially after this current administration of so-called "leadership."

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think we are in the midst of a placeholder election. I agree we are ready for CHANGE but i also think that we are willing to hold out for REAL CHANGE with a track record. And i don't see that this go round.

=========================================================
What does this mean "real change with a track record?" That you will only vote for someone who has already changed the country in a leadership role? Clinton can't run again, and didn't change all that much. Olebush could run again, but never changed a thing, Juniorbush is ineligible, but no sane person would want his kind of change.

Nixon made some changes, but he is deceased, which I think makes him ineligible: besides he almost finished two terms. We can't import a leader from elsewhere, like Lula da Silva, the Constitution is against that.

So you will never see your ideal candidate.
McSame is, well, pretty much the same as Juniorbush. A geezer surrounded by lobbyists pretending to want to change things, but at this stage, luckily able to mostly change his own clothes. Palin's a fundie dork who thinks a war with Russia over Georgia might be in order, so McSame kicking the bucket would NOT be any sort of improvement.

Obama fufils what you want, but he has no experience being president. But we have no one eligible to be president who has already served, other than the elderly Olebush, who changed nothing for the better when he had his chance.

[sirs]

Well, that's 1 viewpoint, and I can even agree that rushing ill-thought of legislation or poorly conceived executive plan, could be worse than doing nothing.  However, I'm gonna stick with the one that demonstrates ...... zip leadership from the current Democratic Presidential nominee, while everyone else, including his own party leaders, are ahead of the game.  And you'll note that the Leadership taken in regards to Georgia/Russia had zip to do with trying to "rush some poorly determined action"

[sirs]

[Xavier_Onassis]

How about McCain continuing the Juniorbush fatcat tax boondoggle, slashing corporate taxes AND promising a balanced budget by 2012?

Explain how that could ever be reality.

Hell, actuarial tables are reality, too, and I don;t think McCain even having a pulse in 2008 is more than 50-50. Do you think he could even BUY a life insurance policy? He should try this, and let the Great Wise Finger of Capitalism decide.

[BT]

This is a fallacy.  How can you make a change to someone who has a track record?  The closest we came to that was four years ago when Howard Dean, clearly a change from the Washington insider crowd with a proven record of balancing budgets, coming up with livable solutions to inequality and insuring all the children of his state and what did you do?

The change comes TO the country from an AGENT of CHANGE with a track record.

You are correct that Dean was such a candidate. You are incorrect in stating i was uncomplimentary to him. If memory serves i tilted you to his direction.

[Brassmask]

This is a fallacy.  How can you make a change to someone who has a track record?  The closest we came to that was four years ago when Howard Dean, clearly a change from the Washington insider crowd with a proven record of balancing budgets, coming up with livable solutions to inequality and insuring all the children of his state and what did you do?

The change comes TO the country from an AGENT of CHANGE with a track record.

You are correct that Dean was such a candidate. You are incorrect in stating i was uncomplimentary to him. If memory serves i tilted you to his direction.

Kindly name one "agent of change with a track record" so that I may share in your wisdom.

And I don't recall  you tilting me to Dean.  I DO recall you being one of the less vocal detractors of Dean.  As I recall, it was my father-in-law that really pointed Dean out to me but you may have encouraged my participation in his campaign.

[BT]

Kindly name one "agent of change with a track record" so that I may share in your wisdom.

Phil Bredesen, your own governor would qualify.

Brian Schweitzer of Montana might be another.

Palin would qualify

Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.


Jimmy Carter, back in the day, was an agent of change with an actual record of reorganizing government.

You seeing a pattern?

People with core principles who actually instituted change in their local area of influence, Either with the help of a sympathetic legislature or over the objections of an unsympathetic one. 

Obama doesn't have that, and frankly neither does McCain.

[BT]

And as long as you are partaking of my wisdom, chew on this:

Pom Poms do not solve problems, they distract from problems.

This country has a mountain of problems. And problems are solved when people work together for a common solution.

Are you seeing that advocated by either major party with ACTION and DEED?

[sirs]

I don't.  I see a continuation of the status quo, by each party....do it our way or no way.  But what I also see is a GOP candidate who has taken far greater strides at trying to work with both parties, even against his own party's interests, than the typical candidate, in an effort to actually get things done.  (much of it tend to not agree with, but at least he's making the effort)

Can't say the same for the Dem candidate now, can we

[Xavier_Onassis]

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Some of our best presidents had little executive experience. Some of our worst were train wrecks: Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan come to mind in particular.

I don't think Palin is even close to being qualified for being president. Had she been a man, she would have been on no ones' list, long or short. Picking her was a stunt, as is becoming ever more obvious.

[richpo64]

>>Picking her was a stunt, as is becoming ever more obvious.<<

I would say the same about Barry. He's a ruse, a stunt. A Black man with no record of ... anything. But he's black, see. So you have to vote for him or you're a racist. A stunt. The people who support him know little or nothing about him, other than some platitude about hope, or change. The media has propped up this empty suit and have failed  miserably in their charge of vetting candidates. There is no more journalism in America. The left has killed it.

The left has sent 30 "journalists' along with a pack of lawyers to Alaska in order to smear Governor Palin with the expressed intent of ruining her and getting Barry elected. Where's the media in Chicago? AWOL. What the media is doing is setting up a powder keg in America. Rush said it today. They have put the Blacks in America (who support Barry nearly 100%. but that's not racist) on a slow boil and they keep turning up the heat by suggesting that race is why Barry will lose, if he does. It's an explosion waiting to happen and the media are complicit in it. Will they be heald accountable when it does?

[Universe Prince]

I read this thread, and watched as McCain/Palin is accused of short-sighted, more-of-the-same action. And yet for all of Obama's thoughtfulness, Obama isn't really offering anything new or anything far-sighted. He still expects the government to meddle and "fix" everything, protecting people from failures in the market that were (and I know this is unpopular to say, but it is true) very much due in part to government attempts to meddle and "fix" everything. It is typical politician white-wash. Ignore what went before, claim it is all inherently a failure of the market and evil capitalists, and that the government can fix it all. There is absolutely nothing new and nothing far-sighted about that.

Not that I'm defending McCain or Bush. Their plans are just as bad. But this Obama-worship that some people do, wherein damn near any pronouncement he makes is hailed as Presidential, thoughtful leadership and change, it's just ridiculous. Obama is a politician. He is saying what he needs to say for political gain. He is not offering change. He's offering politics redressed, at best. Calling it change does not actually make it change.

[sirs]

amen     

[_JS]

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Some of our best presidents had little executive experience. Some of our worst were train wrecks: Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan come to mind in particular.

Quite a few of the worst were from Ohio. I'm not sure why, but that state has contributed a number of really awful leaders.

Though Texas may win the worst state leadership contest on the sheer ineptitude of the current administration.

I have to say Bt, thinking of "agents of change with a track record" it is a rather miserable list.

Carter
W. Bush

Whereas Kennedy and Lincoln had very little experience as "agents of change" before taking office and were far better leaders (we could probably debate on Kennedy).

I can think of two relatives that were good leaders and did have proven track records of bringing change (and were related):

Teddy Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt

Historically speaking, your criterion doesn't seem to bode well for the nation, or at least only a low percentage of the time.