The American people crave leadership which is in such a short supply and so badly needed. We have all come in contact with people that show good and bad leadership qualities. Poor leaders don’t take ownership of problems, they blame others, they give excuses, they pretend that all is well and only tell you what you want to hear. Good leaders build trust by getting involved, taking the lead, showing a vision for others to follow, they unify people, they inspire people, they want the best for all and not just for a select few or favorites. It has been almost four years since this current administration has taken charge of this country. They promised they could fix the problem and all that we have gotten is four years of excuses and blame. The president has rarely even met with his own party over the last year and a half let alone the other party. We have major problems looming on the horizon like the debt ceiling and the Bush tax cuts expiring that have all been shoved off until after the election. All these things that require strong leadership but, there has been a total lack of it. What household do you know of that is successful without a budget? What business do you know of that is successful without a budget? We live in a country that has a government that hasn’t passed a budget for almost four years! Is it any wonder that we have a country that is in financial trouble? Where is the leadership? Where is the reporting of these things? There are only two choices in this upcoming election for leadership. We have seen the leadership of one for the last four years. Is Mitt Romney the answer? I don’t know but, do we really have any other hope for a change of what is going on?
Dave Goos
Baxter
Comments (27)
Add commentLeadership wherefore art thou?
This is one of the most inept presidents that I can remember.
Talk about being over your head and 'the Peter Principle"
this president is the perfect example.
Everything is about him, I believe there is a name for that
which I won't use. If anyone really cares about this country
they should look up a recent article in the Wall Street Journal
by Kimberly Strasel on The Imperial Presidency or some
such name.
Hindsight is 20/20
Now, If Bush was still in office and say ...unemployment rates were sky high...cost of gas increased to over 3.50/gal...he killed the leader of our enemy but continues the battle...didn't come through on election promises of filling up the gas tank, keeping the roof over your head and easing the cost of higher education...dumbing up on selling arms to gangsters in a foreign country to be used against U.S.enforcement agents...Do you think the liberals would be hopping mad?
Immaterial
President Bush is not in office and what he may or may not
have said or done is immaterial. We have what we have now
because people voted in hope and change.
Now we have to hope that there is time to reverse the change.
Just for the record, we are capable of keeping a roof over our heads, filing up our gas tank and paying our higher education
so, we can cross those off your list.
And why should Obama meet with either party
when most of his work is circumventing Congress and misusue of his presidential policies?
The Obama Admistration
is a criminal cartel that needs to be arrested. Obama should have been impeached years ago and Holder belongs in Gitmo. These crooks are just quiet terrorists that are destroying the USA from within and the House of Representatives is allowing it to happen.
Actually what Bush and the
Actually what Bush and the GOP did to our economy is material. You can't have 2 unfunded wars and a huge unfunded tax break and not expect to trash our economy.
It was predicted but Bush wouldn't listen.
Now to say that Obama failed because he hasn't fixed the GOP economy in 4 years is baseless partisan sniping.
And if you think Mitt cares,
Look into his cold, hard eyes. Do you see compassion there? His smile does not extend past his lips. He looks like a man without a soul. He will say whatever it takes to appeal to the audience before him. And then on to the next crowd with a different message.
Elmer Gantry comes to mind.
fish explain this to me
how is a tax cut spending? If something is unfunded, how can you spend it? Tax cuts are cuts in revenue not spending more money. It would be like saying you took a $2000 paycut and calling it a spending increase in your household. Doesnt work
Next, so when Bush spends money to protect you and everyone else in the form of war so you can whine and complain about him 3 years later, its a travesty...but when Obummer spends even more on NOTHING, its perfectly ok and doesnt effect the economy right?
So in other words, its terrible if the right spends money how you dont see fit, but great when the left spends money how you see fit/
Double standards much?
Me, I think they are both idiots but Bush at least had you and I in his mind when spending...Obummer has nothing but special interest groups and big spenders who got him elected in his mind.
South
Just what does your hero have in his eyes there old crystal ball fortune teller??
IDWD good post & can anyone put a price tag on how much 911 really did cost this country??
Southie, considering your Idiot in Chief just gave amnesty
to illegals for the sole purpose of votes, look into Obama's eyes and you'll see the AntiChrist! But you guys can celebrate; I see Barney married his boyfriend. Nice way to trash our Congress!
politics just can't overwhelm all the rest of life...
George Stephanopoulos quote snippet...
Links:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/year--16689148?tab=9482931§ion=...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-vicki-kennedy-jack-lew-pa...
Unless a tax cut results in
Unless a tax cut results in more tax receipts it is the same as an increase in spending.
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and possibly even the middle class tax cuts did not result in more tax revenue. In fact they didn't even "pay" for themselves so are no different from his increases in spending.
fish, give me some links to prove your point
take a look at this CBO chart...what you will see is a sharp increase in the difference of outlays and revenue when the...dare I say it...the LIBERALS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Man I dont get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_...
How can Bush be at fault for something he couldnt stop, you know the excess spending without a budget by liberal controlled house and senate. Still to this day, we do not have a budget from the liberal senate.
Nice try fish, but once again FAIL.
We all know that Clinton had a surplus in the budget but that isnt the story here so dont even go there, this is about your fictitious thought process in blaming Bush for everything.
They walk
amongst us!
Ay Dios Mio!
No wonder lefties are so confused! They don't understand the connection between excess spending and deficits. When you have less income it is your DUTY to cut spending.
Good point Muehl
Now explain how tax cuts paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe while you're at it explain how the Bush stimuli helped anyone out...I remember telling people to stick it in the bank because we were just going to have to give it back in a few months.
The point I'm making isn't that Bush was so much worse than Clinton, or Obama...I'm pointing out that "I have seen the enemy and it is Us".
Like Romney, or Cravaack, or etc.? Vote. But until someone comes along that can get a majority of us pointed in the same direction, we're all going to continue to point fingers at each other...and the leaders we elect will fail to satisfy. Further, its hard to get excited about many conservatives when their main cheerleaders seem to salivate over the prospect of getting even as a first priority, with good government and effective leadership coming after one's enemies have been put in their place.
And I'm sure your side feels the same.
There's no shortage of vengeance on either side, Ey...
...remember the infamous 2009 meeting that was supposed to promote bipartisanship where Obama basically told the crowd they needed to support him because "I won." For that matter he's been uniformly bad even about building trust with anyone across the aisle. He's ham-fisted in everything he does. In that regard, both Bush AND Clinton were better.
eyolf
It's very nice of you to say what you say but let's be honest...the Republicons are nothing but a bunch of racist, homophobic, hypocrites who only care abouth themselves. They profess their love of America but are hell bent on destroying it with their hate and racism. They hate Obama because he is black, period. Of course they won't admit it but it is a fact.
itterditter
Do you mean like the poster above ranting about the Antichrist and gays in Congress? Yes, they are not even embarrassed to express their prejudices. I guess they feel comfortable that they have support here.
A chat forum or a newspaper discussion forum like this one
A chat forum or a newspaper discussion forum like this one seems to attract angry folks who don't like to look at all sides, and some say that places like this are a good place to vent frustrations. I'm not so sure it all that good; sometimes I talke comments from some people a little too seriously, and then I turn it around and accuse ALL conservatives of holding the same opinion.
Maybe my hope is that sane ones like MyEye will shout the angry ones down. But then maybe I should point out when fellow libs get a little too excited.
Bush wasn't Herr Busch: a disciple of Hitler, any more than Obama is the antiChrist. It appears that our conservative friends get just as torqued off about accusations otherwise as we do. And it just makes us all look bad to keep doing it. Maybe we should just stop with it; the few that get a woodie over the attention they get will get bored without it and either step it up or go away.
well eye,
those two twinkies are a great banner for the tollerant left!
Muehl and the 09 meeting:
Muehl and the 09 meeting: that interpretation is one of many, and serves to buttress arguments that Obama = bad. For those that want to refresh their memories, I believe the meeting Meuhl references was the morning of 1/23/09.
Obama said: If we don’t do this, we may lose seats. I may not be re-elected. But none of that’s going to matter if we don’t pass this because the economy will be in a crisis and the American people will be hurting.", and then in response to Arizona rep Kyl's concern about rebates for some low-income taxpayers amounting to a zero or even negative tax rate, Obama did say: "...on some of these issues we’re just going to have ideological differences."
The president then added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."
Do you see that there could be alternate interpretations: Obama pointed out that the American people wanted action and results, implying that he had been elected to lead and not fold before them? Perhaps even implying that Obama wasn't trying to impose his will, but trying to get their attention?
Look at things from the middle and maybe I will too.
Back to the letter
As an American I do NOT crave a leader,I vote for someone who best represents my views.I want to lead my own life and make my own decisions.That is what FREEDOM and LIBERTY are about.This country is a REPRESENTATIVE Republic.Not one where we vote for some savoir to lead us to the promise land.I don't vote for someone to tell me where I should be educated and then expect my leader to find me a job.I don't need a leader to tell me how many hours my children should watch T.V. or how much water I should drink.I agree with the letter writer,Mr.Goos, that the current president isn't doing a very good job,but that does not mean I want to elect some leader/dictator who agrees with me.After Pearl Harbor and 9-11 we did not need a leader to rally the troops,we had a government that acted as the country expected them to act.To me being an American means I am free to be my own leader and enjoy my own rewards or setbacks based on my decisions.
P.S.
In regards to Mr.Holsts letter,be a free American and take control of your own t.v.If your worried about the government censors allowing more Charlie Sheen and less Andy Griffin then take control of your own life.Don't write a letter to your local paper lamenting the fact that the government that was founded on freedom of speech isn't meeting your standards.Shut Charlie off in your home and leave the rest of us alone.Someday an all intrusive gov that you seem to miss may desire to keep your writings out of the public eye.I wouldn't miss Charlie,Andy,or Mr Holsts writings but I sure ain't going to allow my "leaders"to deny them to anyone else.Read what Mr.Holst is saying,"Dress Code"is that determined by you Mr Holst.Sorry if my jeans offend you or is it my daisy dukes,how much freedom would you give up so YOU can be comfortable?I find your whole philosophy to be uncomfortable,maybe I can get a law passed,but I don't have as much money as Rolf so I guess Ill live with it.
No, Ey, I think my interpretation still is sound...
...because for one thing, we did pass ACA, and we are more in crisis than ever. And just to make it clear, ACA has ADDED to the crisis because life insurance costs have gone through the roof thanks to the mandates that are already in effect, so Obama was dead wrong about the ameliorative effects of the bill. Now I know Obama's pretty words at the beginning of that little speech resonate with you, and they would resonate with me, as well, if the person speaking them actually had a sound plan for improving the economy and helping the people. Obama didn't, but he got his way (he won!), and we, the American people, lost.
In closing I'd like to point out that Obama could have added to his comment "I'm sticking with my principles, because I think this is the right thing to do.", and that would have been a million times less offensive than saying, "I won, so I think on that one, I trump you."
You're always worried about people rubbing people's noses in it, well, Obama was doing just that.
I give the President points
For maintaining his demeanor for the last four years while being bombarded by right wing rudeness. My favorite Q and A he had with the Republican Congressional Caucus and their families in Baltimore on Jan. 29, 2010, was impromptu and brilliant. (no teleprompter, either)
But boy did he bruise some egos. He wasn't expected to act as their leader, but their servant.
To skeptics who don't think he met with the Republicans, there is an example.