Posted on 10/09/2014 3:07:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A senator. A House member. A former presidential campaign manager. An adviser to President Obama. All Democrats, these officials have made it a habit to call or email me almost every week of Obama's second term to share their concerns about the course of his presidency.
They ask only that I don't identify them. Some fear retribution; others don't want to compromise their financial or political standing inside their party. These Democrats speak admirably about the president's intellect, integrity, and intentions, but they question his leadership—an admittedly squishy term that can be unfairly deployed against people with the guts to lead. But their critiques are specific, consistent and credible—and they comport with what many other Democrats are telling other journalists, almost always, privately.
Leon Panetta speaks for them now. It's uncanny how the former CIA/Pentagon chief's memoir and book-tour interviews channel frustrations of Democrats who want the president to succeed but consider him a near-failure, who raised their concerns directly with the president or with his team, and were told to stop their worrying.
Actually, the White House calls it "bed-wetting." Team Obama is dismissive of anybody who dares to say the emperor may need some clothes. Mocked and/or ignored by the White House, these Democrats send messages through journalists.
Not Panetta. He wrote a book.
Obama is disengaged. While describing how little Obama fought to stop deep automatic budget cuts that rattled the Pentagon, Panetta wrote: "That episode highlighted what I regard as his most conspicuous weakness, frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause."
"That is not a failing of ideas or of intellect," Panetta added. "He does, however, sometimes lack fire. Too often, in my view, the president relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
The "supreme law" of the United States resides in the provisions and limitations on government's delegated powers structured by its Constitution, as amended in accordance with its own provisions in Article V.
No individual, including a person elected to serve under that Constitution, possesses the right to bypass that document's provisions and allow himself/herself to be described as something of an authority on either Constitution or "the law."
A reading of Bastiat's "The Law" might be helpful for current generations who wish to pursue the subject here.
“These Democrats speak admirably about the president’s intellect, integrity, and intentions”
The last word in that sentence - Intentions - is the one that is the MOST problematic. They can be forgiven for thinking The Obamanation of Desolation is smart because he only has to be smarter than them. They can be forgiven in praising his integrity because he only has to be slightly less corrupt than they to be seen as a person of integrity.
Intention - that is the word that gets the left in trouble. Doing something because you have good intentions that cause more pain, more hardship or makes the situation worse is not an admirable thing. Demonrats use the word intentions to claim moral high ground. They use the word to deflect criticism of their policies. The skids to Hell are greased by good intentions and conservative do the country nor the left any favors by letting the excuse of good intentions be used as a pass to prevent prosecution of crimes, or to hold politicians accountable for the results of their policies that are based upon good intentions.
Notice; if Obama fails to credit for good intentions but is judged upon the results of his policies your perception of him changes almost 180 degrees. To those who imagine themselves to be progressive good intentions trump actual progress.
Or anyone else except Valerie Jarrett.
At 6:30 Brett Baer, et al were mulling over why Obunga refuses to go to Congress and get a Declaration of War. IMHO, it’s because if he got a DoW he’d then be obligated to at least ACT as though he wanted us to win.
This whole faux crock of bull hockey, with a daily limit on the number of bombs our guys can drop, is only a band aid for the ‘Rats to fake their way through November 4th.
After that, all bets are off....and the LAST thing he wants is a DoW hanging around his neck obligating him to pretend to give a d@mn!
Obama is a muslim. He does all he can to help muslims in the Middle East. Why are commentators dancing all around Obama’s motives? He promised that he would stand with muslims. Why are commentators not addressing this issue?
Obama is a muslim.
*****
I don’t believe 0 has a religious bone in his bony body, he uses two billion Islamists as his proxy army.
Never a Senator. He was a House of Representatives Congressman.
Obama has a plan. He has been implementing it for 6 years, and it is working magnificently.
The only one 0bama listens to is Beelzebub, but Leon isn't as upstanding as he portrays himself. How could he be when he is in neck deep with the murdering klintons?
Those jug ears are symbolic decorations...
Why are we applauding liberals for telling us in very, very meek language, what is completely obvious to anyone with an IQ over 20?
BARF!
His proxy army to destroy Christians and Jews?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.