[Zipperfish]

In Canada, one of our comdedians (Rick Mercer) had a "sleepover" with our current Prime Minister Harper and his kids, in which, if I recall correctly, Mr. Harper made peanut butter sandwiches. This was kind of surprising, since Harper is generally known as a bit of a cold fish.

As for teh US Preseident, one of the original ideas was that it was supposed to forego all that royal pomp and circumstance from which the Americans had fought to free themselves. "Of the people, for the people and by the people" or something like that.

[bootlegga]

What's the difference between this and using Twitter? It's just another tool to engage Americans IMHO.

[Psudo]

Amilam wrote:

I find it amusing that Conservatives have no issue with Bush's major right wing media days (far more expensive than a plane flight), but that this somehow cheapens the presidency.

Kjorteo, a leftist, criticized the move as "pointless" while I, a conservative, don't see it as any big deal. Reagan took his message straight to the people quite a few times, and I doubt any conservatives would look down on that.

That is conditional, though. It's only acceptable as a short-term tactic, not a long-term habit. It would be a huge deal if Obama's whole administration was spent on a press tour, as if pushing various policies to one talking head after another like he's pushing spy novels.

Kjorteo wrote:

if I had Psudo standing right next to me and Obama just across the street in a giant chicken suit with a "Honk if you love bagels!" sign, that would be awesome.

Meeting Kjorteo in person would indeed be most righteous, Ted. But, Bill, seeing a sitting US President in a chicken suit would be, like, so totally bogus.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Now if only we could have put Bush in a giant chicken suit we would have had his presidency captured in a single glorious photo...

For some leftists, that's what happened when Bush was in the flight jacket under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished".

----
I was going to complain about Donny_Brasco's public servant argument (I even had an I, Robot reference ready!), but I seem to have been beat to the punch.

(If anyone's wondering, I'll be responding to the other thread when I can get more time.)

[Kjorteo]

I didn't really criticize it...I mean, it did see it as a bit pointless, but not harmful or counterproductive or anything, even said as much in my original post. (I agree with the sentiment of Fireside Chat-like direct appeals to the people and am glad he's doing it, but doesn't he already have a YouTube channel?) Basically, it happened and I don't really see any huge gains or losses from it. He probably didn't need to do that, but whatever.

[Psudo]

Video of the interview. Seems pretty good so far.

[Donny_Brasco]

CKASlacker wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

KrytenKoro wrote:

I've never understood this - why would it be a good thing for the President to be a slave to public opinion? The public as a whole, quite frankly, doesn't have anything that could be called expertise in foreign relations, economic policy, or even basic management.

Yes, but the president is a PUBLIC SERVENT.

Therefore what you said is an oxymoron. And if he wants to get re-elected or if he wants his party to have a chance at re-election then he better listen to the will of the people.

The point of the presidency isn't to get RE-elected -- he's been elected, and been given a mandate based on his campaign and election promises over the next four years. That's his job - if what he's proposed and executed by 2012 looks like it's been a good thing, he'll have a good chance of being re-elected.

Newsflash - they already have plans on how to get nominated and re-elected in 2012.

Politics is an industry. You may not care what the voters think, but you do care about them voting for you. Political parties, like businesses, have their own bylaws and structures set up to ensure the survival of the party long after individuals have passed their usefulness.

Don't kid yourself, everything Obama does is based on him and his party keeping control of that government as tightly as they can.

[Psudo]

I've got a complaint about the video now.

Obama wrote:

Young people, instead of a smart kid coming out of school and wanting to be an investment banker, we want them to decide they want to be an engineer, They want to be a scientist. They want to be a doctor or a teacher.

He lists no careers that actually produce physical goods. No harvesting of resources, no processing them into manufactured goods, no distribution or logistics or marketing. Doctors, scientists, engineers and teachers are great jobs, but they can't function without jobs in the field Karl Marx calls "the means of production". Material wealth must be overly abundant before they can be spared for scientific experiments and innovative plans. If the fundamentals are ignored, all these finer things of a culture are impossible. And Obama gives no sign he recognizes that fact.

Sure, it's a spontaneous list and I could be reading too much into a coincidence. But the habitual list I'd like to have heard would have included at least one of these: farmers, miners, loggers, manufacturers, construction jobs, or retailers. We depend on countless artificial objects, and those objects depend on those productive kinds of jobs. But maybe that breaks some politically correct rules on the environment or something.

The final four picks, though... that joke was hecka funny.

[Kjorteo]

You may or may not be on to something with that complaint--I agree that such jobs are necessary, but it's very possible you're just reading too much into the list. Especially because most of those lack the same shoot-for-the-stars emphasis as the ones he named when stated in a hypothetical list like that--I can only imagine the response had he seriously said that he wanted smart kids coming out of school to want to go into retail. Especially with Jay Leno, whose job is to poke fun at comments like that, sitting about four feet way. I want to think he was just reaching for loftier stereotypical examples.

At the very least, though, it's a step in the right direction. The jobs he mentioned at least directly contribute to society on some level--teachers train the next generation for basically everything, scientists and engineers create inventions and innovations that directly shape the infrastructure of our economy. Beyond that, yes, you're absolutely right that resource and production jobs are essential, but the point he was trying to make is to at least move away from investment banking and financial wizardry along those lines.

This is point that Jon Stewart had been making for a while, as well--we seem to have an entire pretend economy based on interest rates and investment and impossibly arcane means of somehow turning money into more money, while the economy that's based on actual tangible goods and services is left out in the cold. I hear a lot of class warfare-related grumbling from rich Republicans regarding the tax rate and stimulus bill and such (including making frequent references to an Ayn Rand book that includes a 50+ page author filibuster on how the poor contribute nothing to society and are useless and we don't need them,) yet I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation for exactly what wealthy day traders do for their country that makes them so heroic and irreplaceable. (Well, okay, they pay an absolute ton of taxes, but since that's precisely what they're so up in arms about....)

Also, I was very surprised and impressed with his statements regarding personal accountability for himself. I noticed that Obama personally still enjoys massive popularity even among detractors of the current governmental situations--there are quite a few people who, for example, think Geithner is a screwup but still support the President himself. I would have expected a strangely-still-popular President with controversial policies to protect his personal popularity from his administration's controversy with as many levels of obfuscation as humaly possible, but instead I saw Obama all but directly cover for Geithner and attempt to take the heat onto himself.

Anyway, that was a good interview, selling his policy while firmly humanizing the man at the same time, so I'm actually tempted to take back what I said. I do see some good in getting his message out like that.

[Psudo]

If you want to make retail sound fancy, call it logistics or marketing or import/exports or commerce. You can live in uptown Manhattan and drive a rolls with jobs like that.

It bothers me that the fundamentals of production are seen as somehow less valuable or less inspiring than the engineers, scientists list. It means something profound to build a house with your own hands. The definition of "rugged individualism" that dates back to the Iroquois calls the ability to create with your own hands an virtue itself worthy of aspiration.

But, yes, the President is expected to be more practical than that and speak to the aspirations of the audience. It was a good interview, and I have to admit I like Obama. He seems like a great guy. I admit I'm looking--in a way that is not impartial--for reasons to criticize him.

I don't especially favor financial gurus, the money-from-nothing crowd. That's partially why I don't especially favor sending them money by the metric ton. I fail to see how the current Democratic administration is doing anything but favoring the financial gurus, insuring and protecting them, even buying their goods and getting involved in the operation of their companies in the hopes of saving them. I see these as the actions of a loving father, not an impartial government. I'd prefer an impartial government.

[Teikiatsu]

Kerozine wrote:

Least he isn't doing it in a foreign country..

...yet.

[Amilam]

I was refering to travior, not you Psudo hense the expense comment.

travior wrote:

I must agree that it cheapens the office a bit. But more than that, I cannot help but think about the extra costs associated with such appearences. We, the taxpayers, had to cough up the cash for him to fly Air Force One from DC to California to be on a late night talk show. Didn't he just finish blasting the Big 3 execs for doing the same thing?

As far as the favoring of finacial gurus in Walstreet versus the "tough love" given the The Big 3, the Democratic party line is that a lot of this was set in place by the Bush Administration, which is true, but a poor excuse. It may have been the original love child of Bush, but that's no reason to pass it along without adequate safeguards. It's hard to believe neither party has learned the lesson of keeping track of where the money is going and who is getting it.

[Teikiatsu]

To paraphrase his critics, it seems like Obama was more interested in *running* for president than he is interested in *being* president. He seems so much more comfortable in front of a friendly audience than in front of a camera with a small group of advisors, and especially uncomfortable when surrounded by people who hold some disagreements with him (eg the Repub Congress he went to visit.)

Of course I think he's a narcissistic attention whore so my opinion is highly skewed

[Steen]

I absolutely must know: in the comic, is Kjorteo the one with the black hair and Psudo the one with the red hair, or is it the other way around? I feel that I cannot get full enjoyment out of the comic until I know which one is which.

[Kjorteo]

It would have been hilariously ironic if I turned out to be the one who looked relatively normal while Psudo was the one who looked like a long-haired hippie, but no, I'm the one with dark brown hair. http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2015719/ is the picture I sent JJ for reference, if anyone happened to be curious.

[CKASlacker]

HotLed wrote:

Our respect for the offices of the Presidency and of Congress are dropping rapidly. Soon we'll think of the man/woman who carries the burdens of the entire nation on their shoulders as simply being "one of us" and that is something I worry about.

Interesting point that last bit, considering how much of a candidate's "electability" (I think I just invented a word) in the U.S. is based on a candidate being a guy next door, down-home, etc. Look at whatever charm W. had over Gore in 2000, and Clinton, while certainly being a clever guy also had that southern, country "charm" thing down pat. Obama won despite being accused of being elitist -- which always struck me as ironic, since he was raised by a single mom, and certainly didn't have nearly the privelged upbringing that W. had -- and nobody would ever accusing W. as elitist!