Saturday, October 18, 2014

Lack of Leadership

I've pointed out before that President Obama is not a leader.  He fails every test of leadership, every time.  The ebola issue is just the latest in a long string:
Here we go again, as the NY Times puts out their obligatory "Obama is as shocked and dismayed by this latest Big Government fail as the rest of you poor suckers" story...

I have lost track of the number of times we have read that Obama is shocked to learn that big bureaucracies can be clumsy and plagued by poor communication, but I welcome some reminders in the comments; offhand, the Secret Service, the rollout and the VA spring to mind, but I also recall he learned about the IRS and Fast and Furious by careful reading of his daily newspapers. (Don't forget the existence of ISIS!--Darren)

My advice to Team Obama - encourage the Big Guy to take a look around. If he sees a playing field and thousands of screaming fans then he is probably in a luxury skybox somewhere and yes, he is free to cheer and boo like any other spectator. But if he sees a famous desk and slightly curved walls, then he is probably in the Oval Office and might want to remember that he is Chief Executive of the United States and is notionally responsible for the many bureaucracies he purportedly leads.
If this is how someone who loves government and thinks government is the solution to all problems--if this is how such a person runs a government, why on earth would you want to give government more power and authority? 

I do not understand the statist mindset.  I just don't.


mmazenko said...

Fair enough - I still go with about a C- for him.

That said, I think most don't believe government is the answer to all problems, but still support the necessity of strong central government to provide the necessary stability and infrastructure that has been the foundation of American society for more than a century.

Gotta say Hillary has the edge over anyone in the GOP. But I like what I hear about this guy Jeb Hensarling:

Darren said...

Hillary CLINTON? Really? She hasn't accomplished *anything* in her entire life that wasn't because she was Bill Clinton's wife. SHE would be a 3rd Obama term, another untested, incompetent statist who wants nothing more than power.

I'm a "talker for Scott Walker". I hope he runs. He's shown that he can actually accomplish things as an executive, and Wisconsin's government hasn't fallen apart because of his accomplishments, either.

maxutils said...

Scott Walker can't win. Those who don't agree with him absolutely HATE him. You seriously want to put up a candidate who was forced to win a recall vote in his own state? Hillary -- would absolutely not be a third term Obama. The Clintons and the Obamas hate each other, and that notwithstanding ... Hillary would be an upgrade. I'd try to sell my Gary Johnson fetish again, as he would be a GREAT President, but he's too busy making tons of money as CEO of High Inc., a firm that is dedicated to making smoke free marijuana products ... so, Rand Paul ... step up to the plate, and don't go psycho libertarian on us.

Ellen K said...

What's curious is the number of times Obama claims to learn facts from a news story rather than from his staff. Are they not telling him what's going on-sheltering him from the chaos-or is he just being deliberately obtuse?

allen (in Michigan) said...

I don't have any trouble understanding the lefty, i.e. statist, mind. I just keep a picture of an overindulged child, in the body of an adult, in mind and everything falls neatly into place.

Obama we're learning only attends about 40% of his intelligence briefings.

We don't get any explanations because there aren't any that wouldn't result in laughter so there's simply silence on the subject. But if you think of a spoiled child the explanation's clear - intelligence briefings are boring and he doesn't like doing boring stuff. He'd rather do fun stuff.

Having the sense of responsibility of a spoiled child President Obama skips the briefings and makes up for the resulting policy missteps with stupid excuses. Those excuses aren't stupid to him because he's the president and no one can tell him what to do, so there.

Give it a try. Look at lefties and their actions with an image of a spoiled, self-indulgent snot of a kid in mind and see if their actions/words/views/excuses don't match up point for point.

Common Sense said...

Hillary's stints as a US Senator and US Secretary of State counts for nothing?

A GOP fan whinges that a Democrat gained standing due to familial ties? Wow. Just wow.

Hillary is going to be the next POTUS. Resign yourself to popping some popcorn and enjoying the show.

Darren said...

Your failed attempt at redirect is as failed as Obama's administration and Hillary's time as secretary of state.

I didn't "whinge" that Hillary gained standing due to familial ties. I stated that the *only* reason she because a senator and secretary of state was because of who she's married to. It's certainly not because of any ability she has of her own accord--Exhibits A and B are her records as senator and secretary of state. No one, and I do mean no one, would want to be around that shrew were she not married to Bill.

maxutils said...

What, precisely, did she do in either of those positions to warrant merit? The only things I can remember are that she carpetbagged her way in to the NewYork senate because she couldn't cut it on her own in Arkansas, and that Obama gave her a choice position (probably) in return for letting him win ... and her most notable feat there was allowing terrorist crackpots to invade our embassy and kill people, and then coming out with a lie so vapid that she wouldn't even say it herself, and then claiming it didn't matter who killed whom ...or why. If s he wins? The Republicans need to sit down, stop spending money, and let a competent party compete.

Anonymous said...

"Hillary's stints as a US Senator and US Secretary of State counts for nothing?"

Do you consider her stint as secretary of state to have been a success?

-Mark Roulo