There are 158 comments.

1. Inactive
   user_653084

   @SalvatorePadula

   12:17 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   DrewInWisconsin:

   Salvatore Padula:

   DrewInWisconsin: So, I just noticed that the URL reads “Vladimir Putin Loves Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy.” Wow.

   Is your point that that is not true, or that it is bad form to state that truth openly?

   It tells me what this post was originally titled; and as I said earlier I thought the bit about the RT network pushing Ron Paul as a viable candidate was an interesting enough point to be a post on its own. But the fact that this post then devolved into something about Rand Paul tells me that conflating the views of Ron and Rand is going to be a common tactic.
   That we’ve had two such contributor posts in two days gives me some insight into what we can expect over the next two years.

    Fair enough.

2. Thatcher
   user_75648

   @JohnHendrix

   

   12:46 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   That’s something that leaves a Jacksonian like yours truly out in the cold.

   Just for the record, like Troy, I am a Jacksonian.  Here an excellent essay by Mead on the Jacksonians.

3. Member
   Franco

   @Franco

   1:06 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Klaatu,

   No I didn’t vote for Obama, thanks (not) for asking. 

   But you wanted McCain above all the other republicans am I correct? He’s all about your foriegn policy, even though he critisized Bush and threatened to run against him in the 2004 primary. And that begot Obama, because short-sighted and politically clueless national security hawks like yourself thought he’d be a good candidate so blinded to reality you were. 

   At this point any gains accrued by the illustrious Bush policies are gone and we are in worse shape than ever. Yet like a stopped clock, you guys are living in fantasyland of the past, that we can just threaten people with our overspent military and failing economy. 

   Having contributed to our weakness with Bush’s over-reach and his paving the way for a left-wing President who is ruining US credibility around the world, you guys think you can foist another Bush upon us or a clone like Christie, and ‘win’. It makes no sense whatsoever. 

   If Republicans are too stupid to recognize there needs to be a change in direction and some new candidates …How about someone outside the Bush family? …they deserve to lose. 

   The last vestage of the GOP is the threat – Democrats!

   Democrats are bad, but a party that has nothing but “we’re less socialist and more interventionist (without the wherewithall) and we LIKE government control anyways”,  isn’t anything I’d feel compelled to vote for. And I am not alone. You had better hope Bush or Christie can come up with a lot of former Democrats to vote for them (not likely) because there’s a lot of former Republican voters who will need replacing.

4. Inactive
   Umbra Fractus

   @UmbraFractus

   1:09 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   FloppyDisk90:

   Salvatore Padula:

   This is not a criticism of Paul. It is simply a function of the fact that he is a first term senator with no previous experience in government.

   I think this is an asset and not a liability.

    Because that worked so well in 2008.

5. Inactive
   Umbra Fractus

   @UmbraFractus

   1:15 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Klaatu:

   DrewInWisconsin: Chris Christie might win. He might even win running against Hillary. But he won’t get my vote. I’m angry enough at the GOP establishment that if it comes down to Christie vs. Hillary, I might just vote for Hillary out of spite. I’ll bet I wouldn’t be alone.

   Can you please provide me a list of members of the Republican establishment? An identifying feature?

    They identify as Republicans but don’t agree with him on some issues.

   There are no 80% allies in the Tea Party’s world, only 20% enemies.

6. Member
   FloppyDisk90

   @FloppyDisk90

   1:20 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   &div class=”comment-author” style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; color: #0073a8; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-weight: 800; font-size: 16px; line-height: 25.600000381469727px;”>Umbra Fractus

   FloppyDisk90:

   Salvatore Padula:

   This is not a criticism of Paul. It is simply a function of the fact that he is a first term senator with no previous experience in government.

   I think this is an asset and not a liability.

    Because that worked so well in 2008.

   Right, the reason Obama is a zealous Fabian Socialist is because his idealism wasn’t tempered by executive experience in the government.

7. Inactive
   user_653084

   @SalvatorePadula

   1:21 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Franco:
   But you wanted McCain above all the other republicans am I correct?

   I supported Romney in 2008, because I thought he was the best of those who chose to run. Of the Republicans who actually ran in 2008, which did you prefer?
    

8. Member
   DrewInWisconsin

   @DrewInWisconsin

   1:23 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Umbra Fractus:

   Klaatu:

   DrewInWisconsin: Chris Christie might win. He might even win running against Hillary. But he won’t get my vote. I’m angry enough at the GOP establishment that if it comes down to Christie vs. Hillary, I might just vote for Hillary out of spite. I’ll bet I wouldn’t be alone.

   Can you please provide me a list of members of the Republican establishment? An identifying feature?

   They identify as Republicans but don’t agree with him on some issues.
   There are no 80% allies in the Tea Party’s world, only 20% enemies.

    It’s kind of rude to put words in someone else’s mouth.

9. Inactive
   Klaatu

   @Klaatu

   1:30 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

   Franco:
   Klaatu,
   No I didn’t vote for Obama, thanks (not) for asking.
   But you wanted McCain above all the other republicans am I correct? He’s all about your foriegn policy, even though he critisized Bush and threatened to run against him in the 2004 primary. And that begot Obama, because short-sighted and politically clueless national security hawks like yourself thought he’d be a good candidate so blinded to reality you were.
   At this point any gains accrued by the illustrious Bush policies are gone and we are in worse shape than ever. Yet like a stopped clock, you guys are living in fantasyland of the past, that we can just threaten people with our overspent military and failing economy.
   Having contributed to our weakness with Bush’s over-reach and his paving the way for a left-wing President who is ruining US credibility around the world, you guys think you can foist another Bush upon us or a clone like Christie, and ‘win’. It makes no sense whatsoever.
   If Republicans are too stupid to recognize there needs to be a change in direction and some new candidates …How about someone outside the Bush family? …they deserve to lose.
   The last vestage of the GOP is the threat – Democrats!
   
   Democrats are bad, but a party that has nothing but “we’re less socialist and more interventionist (without the wherewithall) and we LIKE government control anyways”, isn’t anything I’d feel compelled to vote for. And I am not alone. You had better hope Bush or Christie can come up with a lot of former Democrats to vote for them (not likely) because there’s a lot of former Republican voters who will need replacing.

    Actually I was not a McCain supporter in the primary, in 2000 or 2008.  I agree with McCain on some issues but not others.  I do admit to having a soft spot for him though but for entirely personal reasons.

   There is no question Obama has damaged the country but I fail to see how anyone but those who object to a robust American presence in the world can be blamed for that.  The Bush/McCain strategy in Iraq worked.  Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

   Your assertion Bush is to blame for our current weakness is simply without merit.  If we are weak it is because Obama has a vision of America’s place in the world being significantly less than it has been since the end of WWII.  I believe Rand Paul shares a very similar vision.  More of the same will not make us stronger.

   I believe you greatly overestimate the number of Republicans who agree with you. 

10. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    1:50 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

     Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008?  Specifics, please.

11. Listener
    Fricosis Guy

    @FricosisGuy

    1:55 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    I’m surprised you’re endorsing a principles-first, results-be-darned approach. I’m hardly down on Christie — a pro-life, fairly conservative governor in New Jersey is a great thing — but a blanket endorsement of the Bush 43 national security agenda is foolish. The Bush Doctrine was the opposite mistake of The Obama Doctrine: grinding bluster and intervention that lost its effect over time.

    As for Rand Paul, I agree with Troy that he’s being deliberately cagey. But it’s in the service of setting the predicate for his basic argument: America can be strong on defense without being a serial large-scale interventionist. You may not trust him and his father’s legacy may damage his credibility to carry that message, but that’s where he’s going.

    He’s not my first choice — Scott Walker here — but I prefer Rand Paul over the other senators.

    Klaatu:

    The principles are at issue, I believe I understand the principles what would guide his foreign policy. Can you say the same for Paul? I can’t he seems to want to keep that info to himself.

     

12. Member
    Franco

    @Franco

    2:26 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Salvatore Padula:

    Franco: But you wanted McCain above all the other republicans am I correct?

    I supported Romney in 2008, because I thought he was the best of those who chose to run. Of the Republicans who actually ran in 2008, which did you prefer?

     I supported Romney also in 2008 and it was the beginning of my contempt for McCain. However I was not for Romney in 2012 I wanted Gingrich, who was villified by establishment republicans and Democrats as well. I thought Romney would lose, and he did! (He could have won in 2008, but we will never know) He would have made a FAR better candidate than McCain though, I think that’s pretty safe to say.

    He did exactly what I expected him to do, play nice and be the managerial non-threatening no risk candidate. I wanted him to win.

    But events are passing by rapidly now and I’m reassessing my whole world-view. I used to agree with the Bush policies, but that was a dozen years ago. I’ve grown wiser.

    Now to certain Republicans this is anathema. Why, you must be a leftist then, they say. Not so. I am probably more ‘right’ than these people. Well then they say, that’s no good, you are to the right of me! But of course you will vote for whomever the GOP decides upon, right?

    No. 

    But they should know this: I and others here used to vote Republican and now we don’t necessarily. If John McCain is your idea of a Republican, then I don’t know what you can possibly be expecting to win ever again.

13. Inactive
    user_653084

    @SalvatorePadula

    2:31 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Franco:

     

     

    I supported Romney also in 2008 and it was the beginning of my contempt for McCain. However I was not for Romney in 2012 I wanted Gingrich, who was villified by establishment republicans and Democrats as well. I thought Romney would lose, and he did! (He could have won in 2008, but we will never know) He would have made a FAR better candidate than McCain though, I think that’s pretty safe to say…..
    …Now to certain Republicans this is anathema. Why, you must be a leftist then, they say. Not so. I am probably more ‘right’ than these people. Well then they say, that’s no good, you are to the right of me! But of course you will vote for whomever the GOP decides upon, right?
    No.
    But they should know this: I and others here used to vote Republican and now we don’t necessarily. If John McCain is your idea of a Republican, then I don’t know what you can possibly be expecting to win ever again.

     I appreciate the answer. McCain is certainly not my ideal republican.

14. Listener
    Fricosis Guy

    @FricosisGuy

    2:31 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    I’m glad to see you give McCain at least partial credit for the surge when he was the one who did the heavy lifting for selling it. It was what salvaged Iraq after two full years of inattention from the administration.

    Bush’s inconsistent performance — I would say fecklessness — clearly damaged the idea of U.S. power projection. I don’t see how you get around that. 

    RE: GOP’s agreement w/ Franco. Bush 43 only received 51% of the popular vote as an apparently successful war president — running against a war hero who ostentatiously threw someone else’s medals away — who promised to finish the job. There was never a deep reservoir of support for Bushism at its peak… maybe some nostalgia now, but nothing more.

    Klaatu:

    There is no question Obama has damaged the country but I fail to see how anyone but those who object to a robust American presence in the world can be blamed for that. The Bush/McCain strategy in Iraq worked. Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.
    Your assertion Bush is to blame for our current weakness is simply without merit…. 

    I believe you greatly overestimate the number of Republicans who agree with you.

     

15. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    2:40 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

    Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008? Specifics, please.

     We had won the wart.  The insurgency and al Qaeda specifically had been defeated on the battlefield, the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role.  IS that specific enough?

16. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    2:51 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Fricosis Guy:
    I’m glad to see you give McCain at least partial credit for the surge when he was the one who did the heavy lifting for selling it. It was what salvaged Iraq after two full years of inattention from the administration.
    Bush’s inconsistent performance — I would say fecklessness – clearly damaged the idea of U.S. power projection. I don’t see how you get around that.
    RE: GOP’s agreement w/ Franco. Bush 43 only received 51% of the popular vote as an apparently successful war president — running against a war hero who ostentatiously threw someone else’s medals away – who promised to finish the job. There was never a deep reservoir of support for Bushism at its peak… maybe some nostalgia now, but nothing more.
    
     

     

    I do not believe the problems in Iraq prior to the Surge were due to any inattention on the part of Bush or his administration.  All military conflicts go through cycles of action-reaction-counteraction.  Sometimes one side is slow to react in a successful manner and has to regroup and change tactics.  It is not because the commanders are inattentive, they just make decisions that do not work out as anticipated.  I reject the idea Bush was feckless.

    GW Bush was hardly the ideal Republican candidate although I believed he was the best available at the time.  His flaws as a candidate do not tip support toward Franco’s position.  

17. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    3:13 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

    Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008? Specifics, please.

    We had won the wart. The insurgency and al Qaeda specifically had been defeated on the battlefield, the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role. IS that specific enough?

     OK, but if all that was true in 2008, what has Obama done to make it less true today?

18. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    3:32 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

    Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008? Specifics, please.

    We had won the wart. The insurgency and al Qaeda specifically had been defeated on the battlefield, the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role. IS that specific enough?

    OK, but if all that was true in 2008, what has Obama done to make it less true today?

     He failed to obtain a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis assuring a continuing presence of American support in the country and basically has ignored the country since he took office.

19. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    3:37 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

    Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008? Specifics, please.

    We had won the wart. The insurgency and al Qaeda specifically had been defeated on the battlefield, the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role. IS that specific enough?

    OK, but if all that was true in 2008, what has Obama done to make it less true today?

    He failed to obtain a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis assuring a continuing presence of American support in the country and basically has ignored the country since he took office.

     Then I guess the war wasn’t so won and the Iraqi forces not so ready to assume control.  Otherwise, why would a continued large military presence be necessary?

20. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    3:45 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

    Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008? Specifics, please.

    We had won the wart. The insurgency and al Qaeda specifically had been defeated on the battlefield, the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role. IS that specific enough?

    OK, but if all that was true in 2008, what has Obama done to make it less true today?

    He failed to obtain a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis assuring a continuing presence of American support in the country and basically has ignored the country since he took office.

    Then I guess the war wasn’t so won and the Iraqi forces not so ready to assume control. Otherwise, why would a continued large military presence be necessary?

     Perhaps you did not read what I wrote… the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role.

    The support role is not insignificant.  Iraq still lacked a lot of the combat support and combat service support capability US forces can bring.

    Had we left Germany immediately after the Nazi surrender and resurgent Nazi forces or even communists waged a war against the new elected government, would you argue the war had never been won?

21. Member
    user_240173

    @FrankSoto

    3:46 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

    Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008? Specifics, please.

    We had won the wart. The insurgency and al Qaeda specifically had been defeated on the battlefield, the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role. IS that specific enough?

     Though your analysis of the situation on the ground is correct, it is incorrect to say we had won the war.   If we had, Obama pulling out wouldn’t have changed the fact.

    A better description would be that things were looking up in 2008.  One of the reasons we struggle with achieving lasting victories in modern conflicts is our refusal to acknowledge that war is not a series of battles, but a test of wills.

22. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    3:52 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Frank Soto:

    Klaatu:

    FloppyDisk90:

    Klaatu: Obama ran against that strategy and he is responsible for forfeiting the victory we gained.

    Exactly what victories in Iraq have we forfeited since 2008? Specifics, please.

    We had won the wart. The insurgency and al Qaeda specifically had been defeated on the battlefield, the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role. IS that specific enough?

    Though your analysis of the situation on the ground is correct, it is incorrect to say we had won the war. If we had, Obama pulling out wouldn’t have changed the fact.
    A better description would be that things were looking up in 2008. One of the reasons we struggle with achieving lasting victories in modern conflicts is our refusal to acknowledge that war is not a series of battles, but a test of wills.

     I disagree,  Had Truman or Eisenhower pulled out of Germany or Japan and either went to hell with internal or externally sponsored violence, it would be incorrect to say we had not won the war. Obama simply proved it is possible to win a war and lose the peace.

23. Member
    user_240173

    @FrankSoto

    4:06 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:

    I disagree, Had Truman or Eisenhower pulled out of Germany or Japan and either went to hell with internal or externally sponsored violence, it would be incorrect to say we had not won the war. Obama simply proved it is possible to win a war and lose the peace.

     Lawyerly use of the language will not do here.  Wars end when the will of your opponents to fight is broken.  The will of Iraqi insurgents was clearly not broken in 2008.  

    When entering into wars, we cannot pretend that victory will be easier in coming then it actually is.  If we do, the American people will lose their will to fight, and no matter how well the combat was going for us, the war will be lost.

    Sun Tzu placed the moral law as the number one concern when deliberating war for a reason. If the people are not in harmony with their leader, they will not endure the costs of war for long.

    George Bush’s plan for nation building in Iraq is as much at fault for the outcome as Barrack Obama’s refusal to carry on that plan.  The Bush administration seems to have failed to consider just costly and time consuming the effort would be.  They failed to account for just how divided the country is on such issues, and as a result, laid a plan that would never work, as the American people didn’t have the will to see it through.

24. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    4:06 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Klaatu:
    Perhaps you did not read what I wrote… the Iraqi Army was largely capable of maintaining security and government control throughout the nation, and US forces were transitioning to a support role.
    The support role is not insignificant. Iraq still lacked a lot of the combat support and combat service support capability US forces can bring.
    Had we left Germany immediately after the Nazi surrender and resurgent Nazi forces or even communists waged a war against the new elected government, would you argue the war had never been won?

     Your interpretation of the post-WWII situation in Germany is selective and convenient.  Six years after the end of WWII the US forces in Germany weren’t required to prop up a semi-legitimate government and the threat of civil war has largely receded.  Furthermore, a GI could reliably drive around the streets of Berlin without full body armor in an unarmored vehicle.  Something that is required for a similar trip in Baghdad to this day.

    The post-WWII history of Germany simply doesn’t warrant the simplistic parallel you’re trying to draw here.

25. Inactive
    Klaatu

    @Klaatu

    4:56 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 25, 2014

    Frank Soto:

    Klaatu:

    I disagree, Had Truman or Eisenhower pulled out of Germany or Japan and either went to hell with internal or externally sponsored violence, it would be incorrect to say we had not won the war. Obama simply proved it is possible to win a war and lose the peace.

    Lawyerly use of the language will not do here. Wars end when the will of your opponents to fight is broken. The will of Iraqi insurgents was clearly not broken in 2008.
    When entering into wars, we cannot pretend that victory will be easier in coming then it actually is. If we do, the American people will lose their will to fight, and no matter how well the combat was going for us, the war will be lost.
    Sun Tzu placed the moral law as the number one concern when deliberating war for a reason. If the people are not in harmony with their leader, they will not endure the costs of war for long.
    George Bush’s plan for nation building in Iraq is as much at fault for the outcome as Barrack Obama’s refusal to carry on that plan. The Bush administration seems to have failed to consider just costly and time consuming the effort would be. They failed to account for just how divided the country is on such issues, and as a result, laid a plan that would never work, as the American people didn’t have the will to see it through.

     Again, changing the facts on the ground impacts the will of the enemy to fight.  The Nazis had no further will to fight the millions of Allied troops in theater.  Remove those troops and the calculus changes.  The Iraqi insurgents were no longer willing or capable of facing Iraqi forces backed up with American support.  Obama removed that American support therefore changing the facts on the ground.

    I agree war is a long term program.  I do not object to ‘nation building’ as it is the means to stabilize a country after a military victory.  I do not believe the Bush administration failed to consider the cost in time and money necessary to create a stable Iraq.  Obama was unwilling to expend any of either. 

26. Inactive
    Umbra Fractus

    @UmbraFractus

    7:03 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

    FloppyDisk90: Right, the reason Obama is a zealous Fabian Socialist is because his idealism wasn’t tempered by executive experience in the government.

    A young, inexperienced idealist is swept into an office for which he is completely unprepared via a once in a lifetime combination of true believers, “He’s not like the rest of them” moderates, and a wildly unpopular incumbent. The true believers dismiss his lack of experience as a good thing because he is “untainted,” and expect his idealism to pull us out of the mess the “establishment” has gotten us into.

    The only difference between Barack Obama 2008 and Rand Paul is which side the true believers stand on.

27. Inactive
    Umbra Fractus

    @UmbraFractus

    7:13 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

    Franco: But they should know this: I and others here used to vote Republican and now we don’t necessarily. If John McCain is your idea of a Republican, then I don’t know what you can possibly be expecting to win ever again.

     McCain. McCain. McCain.

    Yes, the guy is wrong on many things, but simply associating his name with a particular position does not automatically discredit it.

     

28. Member
    FloppyDisk90

    @FloppyDisk90

    8:11 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

    Umbra Fractus:

    FloppyDisk90: Right, the reason Obama is a zealous Fabian Socialist is because his idealism wasn’t tempered by executive experience in the government.

    A young, inexperienced idealist is swept into an office for which he is completely unprepared via a once in a lifetime combination of true believers, “He’s not like the rest of them” moderates, and a wildly unpopular incumbent. The true believers dismiss his lack of experience as a good thing because he is “untainted,” and expect his idealism to pull us out of the mess the “establishment” has gotten us into.
    The only difference between Barack Obama 2008 and Rand Paul is which side the true believers stand on.

    Obama is a terrible President because of his political philosophy.  You really think he’d be more to your liking if he’d had a few terms honing his skills as the gov of Illinois?  That would have just made him that much more efficient at implementing his agenda and he’s already done a passable job as it is.

29. Inactive
    Umbra Fractus

    @UmbraFractus

    9:35 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

    FloppyDisk90: Obama is a terrible President because of his political philosophy. You really think he’d be more to your liking if he’d had a few terms honing his skills as the gov of Illinois? That would have just made him that much more efficient at implementing his agenda and he’s already done a passable job as it is.

     Or it might have taught him that being an executive does not consist of saying, “Make it so,” and given him a better appreciation of the limits of the office. It might have informed him that, “We’ll settle for 85%, but you still get nothing,” is not a good negotiating tactic.

30. Thatcher
    TG

    @TG

    10:08 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 26, 2014

    Umbra Fractus:

    FloppyDisk90: Obama is a terrible President because of his political philosophy. You really think he’d be more to your liking if he’d had a few terms honing his skills as the gov of Illinois? That would have just made him that much more efficient at implementing his agenda and he’s already done a passable job as it is.

    Or it might have taught him that being an executive does not consist of saying, “Make it so,” and given him a better appreciation of the limits of the office. It might have informed him that, “We’ll settle for 85%, but you still get nothing,” is not a good negotiating tactic.
     

    TG response begins here:  Not a good negotiating tactic in a strategic sense (lol) … but he seems to have been “getting away” with it so far, right?  (unfortunately)