Maobama
Posted on 03/13/2011 5:57:13 AM PDT by fightinJAG
First I did a double take. He said what? I read it again and the shock waves followed.
A beleaguered Presi dent Obama has told aides it would be so much easier to be the president of China, The New York Times reports.
There are two ways to read the remark, which is attributed to anonymous aides. One is that Obama resents the burden of global leadership that comes with the American presidency. The other is that he longs for an authoritarian system, where he need tolerate no dissent.
Under either or both interpretations, his confession carries a dose of self-pity that means Obama has hit a wall.
He is in over his head, and he knows it.
Even before the horror in Japan, the president faced a litany of nightmares. From Libya to Iran to Afghanistan to gas prices, unemployment and rising debt, Obama is surrounded by serious trouble.
His responses range from halfhearted to wrongheaded. Nothing is working. Unhappy voters already repudiated his first two years and might fire him when they get the chance. It is a moment that brings home the truth of the sign on Harry Truman's desk: "The buck stops here."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Maobama
EPIC FAIL presidency. EPIC FAIL presiDUNCY!
He is just not leadership material. I don’t think he is that smart either.
“He is in over his head, and he knows it.”
Ya think? My God, is this guy a disaster. Morons should not be permitted to vote!
This is why over the years I have become against “get out the vote of morons” efforts.
It simply means that he can not tolerate the results of the 2010 election. Like other progressives such as the union thugs in WI and elsewhere, the concept of a representative democracy is no longer acceptable. Together they will nullify the will of the electorate where they can.
I agree. I would love to see how his administration works from the inside. I doubt he lifts a finger. Just coasts between workout sessions, golf and parties.
Well when a country elects to the the office of president a common little street thug that has never had a job in his entire life only because he is black.
Little is known about the Obamas & the only things known are all bad.
Of course he is out of his league, he is an emperor with no clothes, he is nothing but a hood rat criminal that can never succeed at anything honorable because he has no honor.
I still think the best approach to surviving the next two years would be to offer him some ceremonial position - for want of a better term we might call it “king” - that has all the perks of the Presidency, but none of the responsibilities.
He’d still have a big ‘ole house, lots of servants, all the Kobe beef and argula he can eat, a lavish party budget, unlimited tee times, his own court for shooting hoops, even a special seal he could stick on a podium whenever he’d deign to speak to us. But he wouldn’t have to deal with any problems - we’d have a real president for that.
(Of course, someone would have to tactfully explain to him with the lack of responsiblity he’d have to give up all executive power, which I expect wouldn’t go over too well - but still, with the prospect of all of that free time on the links, who knows?)
I’m anxiously awaiting the O-hole’s “Greg Stillson moment”...
I’m anxiously awaiting the O-hole’s “Greg Stillson moment”...
“... future generations would say, ‘This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal’.”
He should tell that to the people of Minami Sanriku (if he can find any).
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen."
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2 '07 New York Observer
...Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women's vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women's average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands' relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women's support for high taxes understandably declines.
Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor.
The more certain a woman is that she doesn't risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
I get incensed at the Obama stickers I still see on cars in Austin. But I do like seeing the new "Secede" stickers on other vehicles.
Libyans want a new Muslim leader. Thay can have ours.
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.