[RoseClown]

lol. In the end, I feel kinda sorry for Bush. He isn't brilliant (probably average on the IQ grade...not bad, but not what you would want a president to be.) listened to the wrong people, and let his feelings govern him. Feelings must be tempered by reason, and vice-versa. I guess that's what I liked about Obama, he seemed to strike this balance. Hopefully anyway. Like I said, lets wait and see.

[Taospark]

I think people, both American and otherwise, are overestimating the President's role. It's really a unique job, not just because of the United States' economic and sociopolitical position, but because most of the West's democracies run on some variant of Parliamentary system.

A prime minister can call on their party but a President can frequently be at odds with his own party in Congress. For example, Congress bilaterally passed the War Powers Act after Nixon resigned to ensure no President could conduct a military operation beyond six months without Congressional approval. Every President since Nixon, regardless of party, has declared the law unconstitutional and has refused to obey it. With the Supreme Court unable to rule unless there is an actual court case, that places the remaining two branches at odds even with the current Democratic domination of two branches of government.

A President can create foreign policy and conduct diplomacy but cannot approve treaties. He (or she) could call for a change in government spending from defense to alternative energy research but cannot set the budget. They can also use the enforcement agencies such as the FAA, FCC, CIA, or FBI to pursue domestic policies but those agencies ultimately answer to Congressional hearings. So you sort of have a chief executive who can initiate larger strategic moves but barring outright deception, cannot complete them alone without Congress.

[Hallus]

Kjorteo wrote:

You know who else won an election once?

Hitler.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

He was elected for a very small position. He only got put into real office because his political party burnt down the government building and they needed to put -someone- in office to attempt to regain control of the country.

[travior]

The comparison that I make between Obama and Hitler is the fact that he held so much sway with the population via his charisma. I'm not saying that Obama will become a Hitler, but that electing him solely on charisma is scary. I admit, he has a great speech writer and he can come off as being a real people-person and go-getter.

For someone preaching change and willingness to reach across the aisle, his pick for Chief of Staff makes you wonder: An experienced Washington insider.

[Kjorteo]

All right, I'm hearing this one a lot, and it's just silly. Fear of charisma is ridiculous. If one were to take that position to its logical conclusion, then the way I understand it, anyone who's more exciting than John Kerry or Stephane Dion evidently has Hitler-like charisma now. Of course, Dion and Kerry are remembered as being insufferable losers simply because of how boring and stuffy they were. Make up your minds, people. Do we want our politicians to be engaging or not?

[RoseClown]

Besides, back around 100 years ago having a good speaker in office was a prerequisite almost. Yes, charisma has great power, but without it people like Patrick Henry (give me liberty or give me death!) Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King would not have made the impact in history that they did. Also if you compare the way Obama deliveres speeches to the way people like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin did, there is a big difference. They pumped energy in the crowd, using a great deal of energy in their body and voice. They drove the crowds into frenzies, encourging them to abandon reason and embrace feeling. Obama during his speech, well, he could have very easily done that. But he didn't, and therein lies the difference.

[Pseudonym]

Kjorteo wrote:

You know who else won an election once?

Hitler.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

Fear of charisma is ridiculous.

Seconded.

Bush wasn't Hitler, and Obama is not Stalin. He's going to be somewhere between Carter (tolerably incompetent leftist) and FDR (respectably competent leftist).

[martin14]

Psudo wrote:

Kjorteo wrote:

Fear of charisma is ridiculous.

Seconded.

Bush wasn't Hitler, and Obama is not Stalin. He's going to be somewhere between Carter (tolerably incompetent leftist) and FDR (respectably competent leftist).

thats a pretty big range, from Carter to FDR

[thealmightynarf]

Like anything else, charisma is merely a tool that is only dangerous when it's misused.

Can Obama misuse it? Sure. Will he? Eh... I don't think so. The worst some one like him could do is get himself into a position he's completely unqualified for... and he's already done that.

[martin14]

thealmightynarf wrote:

Like anything else, charisma is merely a tool that is only dangerous when it's misused.

Can Obama misuse it? Sure. Will he? Eh... I don't think so. The worst some one like him could do is get himself into a position he's completely unqualified for... and he's already done that.

and bring the whole team of political hacks with him.. some change

[fire_i]

I do believe Obama will manage to keep the majority of the US population satisfied through most of his mandate. He won't be as flamboyant a president as many would wish, especially that he arrives in hard times, but he's a man who is capable of working with the opposing party better than at least the last few presidents... that should help him go through the economic crisis with support from across the spectrum and a good capital of sympathy.

I personally have high hopes for the next mandate; not because I expect Obama to be outstanding, but because I expect he'll reduce the political divide that breaks the USA apart. I'm certain we'll see the two parties work hand in hand more often than we've become used to and that will help freshen the air.

Likewise, it's just a façade, but having Obama as the face of America might be the best thing that happened to its international image since September 11 (no matter how I loathe to say it, September 11 did bring most the world to suddenly like the US more, after all). Obama's image is distorted, but that distortion actually has quite a few positive points - an improved international image for the US is likely the main one.

[noufie]

I proudly voted for McCain & would do so again. I don’t like Obama. I think his policies will be terrible for America. Can’t believe I’m going to agree with Kjotero but here goes...

Pandering to the Nobel committee aside, Jimmy Carter is a decent human being. He teaches Sunday school every week. He is the face of Habitat for Humanity. And President Carter was a fiscal conservative who tried to bridle congressional spending. This fed his public persona as soft-spoken, humble, open and honest. It was the antithesis of the cynical, ruthless, ambitious, paranoid Nixon. The Carter presidency, although an otherwise dismal failure, symbolically closed the chapter on Watergate.

We’ll learn if our first black president is a decent man like Carter. We’ll also learn if he’s a terrible president. Either way, the symbolic value of the Obama presidency is important. This is bigger than Watergate.

Most Canadians can’t fully appreciate what this means. No offense, guys. You don’t have as many black people as we do. Nor is your history with slavery as shameful as ours. You understand this on an intellectual, theoretical level. Not so sure you fully get it on an emotional level. 2nd hand accounts of racial reconciliation may be touching to some. Not me. I’m jaded this way.

Talking to black men after the election has shocked me in the best of ways. They sincerely feel different about their country. It doesn’t matter if Obama gets booted from office in 2012. Several times, I was told an Obama failure would be Obama’s fault. These men realize that their personal failures are their own fault.

That’s huge.

They don’t think Obama will perfect America. I don’t, either. No conservative thinks any man will perfect America.

I fully expect to be accused of racism when taking Obama to task on policy. I won’t back down from that fight.

The other benefit to an Obama administration is that people like RoseClown can stop undermining our president abroad.

I am a staunch, right-wing, pro-life, card-carrying NRA member & Republican. My guy just lost the election, and I’m here defending the Democrat. Politics end at the border, RoseClown. We still discuss politics with foreigners. But intentionally whipping up foreign opinion against our nation for domestic political gain is way out of line. Knock it off.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

In the end, I feel kinda sorry for Bush. He isn't brilliant (probably average on the IQ grade...not bad, but not what you would want a president to be

Are you familiar with his test scores of 1206? His SAT places him at above average, about 125 - 130, so while not a rocket scientist, he is far from average.

[Taospark]

Bush certainly wasn't dumb. He was smart enough to craft a folksy persona despite being the very definition of a New England elitist and smart enough to wheel and deal his way into a governorship of one of the most powerful states in the Union. Even before taking on Rove, he knew the value of currying the favor of the religious conservative base but also knew the dangers of allowing them too much reach into government. The issue here isn't whether or not he was intelligent.

We've had unintellectual (and even anti-intellectual) Presidents before and they don't ruin administrations - it's the smart people positioned behind them who make the real power plays which can doom America. Nixon, Buchanan, Harding, and Jackson all did not single-handedly wreck the safety and integrity of America - it took a cabinet.