.....Just a few idle thoughts that just pop into my head now and then, triggered perhaps by something I've read or heard. As an example, I wonder if the world would have been outraged had the Turkish activists in the flotilla had killed nine Israeli commandos. I don't doubt that they would have been excused for having defended themselves against barbaric Israeli soldiers. Another thought; why is it that the EU who have asked Israel to lift its blockade for "humanitarian" reasons do not also ask that in return Hamas should release Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier that they have holding captive for several years, and that Hamas should recognize Israel's right to exist for Humanitarian reasons? Nah. That won't happen. It's too logical. It's not fair to a terrorist organization that would re-arm in a minutial (just a neo-logism) minute, if they could.
.....Another thought involves the "Tea Party". (Not fair to Starbucks). Their rallying cry appears to be, "We want our country back!" Who took it, and where is it now? Why didn't they call the police? They also whine "We want our freedom back!" Who took it away? Where did it go? What freedom is missing? Except perhaps, their freedom to vote for a white president. Cal thomas. my least favorite columnist, writes today and quotes advice made by Obama at a high school graduation, "...Take responsibility, not just for your successes, but for your failures as well." Thomas goes on to say "Too bad he doesn't practice what he preaches to the students." Later in the article Thomas conradicts himself by saying, "Even the BP oil spill which he says is his responsibility, isn't really, you see." It seems to me that Obama does, indeed, practice what he preaches. Too bad too many people don't appreciate the fact that we have an intelligent President in the White House unlike the Cowboy from Toy Story or the Barbie Doll from Alaska. The politically unsophisticated are not bad people. They may be very good at Canasta or Shuffleboard, but I simply can't stop myself from rubbing them the wrong way. It's an illness for which no rational cure exists. I'm so sorry.
Doc, while I agree that the President takes responsibility for his failures, I would qualify that by noting that he almost always follows in academic fashion with an explanation of why he is really not solely responsible, and in fact why someone else is even more responsible. (Usually the name of Someone Else is George Bush.) I could but won't debate Obama's policies because the point here is whether he is presidential, capable of taking the full measure of responsibility--a key to earning the status of leader. I haven't heard him take full responsibility on any major issue.
ReplyDeleteThis habit of always dragging in someone more responsible for failure is accompanied by his habit of invoking support for his opinions on everything from economy to war to climate. Notice that he almost always raises a finger and says, "And I'm not the only one who believes this."
Combine all this with his dozens of votes as a state legislator where, rather than take a stand on a politically risky issue, he voted "present".
Was it Truman who remarked that the Presidency is a lonely place? In any event, Obama is intellectually lonely.
Is he, as you suggest, an exceptionally intelligent man? Intelligent, yes, but exceptionally? Where is any evidence? He has made goofs on geography and culture and economics and history that would have brought guffaws across the media had Bush made them. We know nothing of his academic record. He wrote nothing while he edited Harvard Law Review. Assuming he wrote his two books, they are hardly exceptional. (I say assuming only because few politicians actually write their own books.)
Finally, what political proposals has he made that demonstrate intelligence? Perhaps letting Congress fill in and take responsibility for the details of your programs is intelligent--but it's not leadership. And if it's not leadership, it doesn't show presidential intelligence.
.....OK, Wally, so you don't think he's a leader and I do. I'm too busy watching the World Cup to begin a debate with you. I'll simply say you're wrong on all counts, and I'm surprised at your vituperative critique.
ReplyDeleteYou write about Obama "...intelligent, yes, but exceptionally? Where is any evidence?"
ReplyDeleteIt's very simple; just open your mind, your eyes and your ears.
Always easy to meet substance with labels (vituperative) or ad hominem (just open your mind), but then Doc is busy with the World Cup, and in fact I agree with Doc, the World Cup is more interesting and entertaining than the President.
ReplyDeleteWally, Webster defines vituperation as "Lengthy harsh criticism" Your comment as comments go is lengthy and almost every paragraph meets that criteria. Once opinions become vituperative they lose their status as substance.
ReplyDelete.....And I never wrote the "Anonymous" comment. I don't know who that is, but he/she obviously does not agree with nor care for your harsh characterization of Obama. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, even though it appears you do not cotton to one who doesn't agree with you. But that doesn't make you a bad person, and I still love you.