We don't need another Bush or Clinton in the White House
 

Is our Country so lacking in qualified Presidential candidates that we have Clinton as "heir apparent" and the possibility of a third Bush desiring the White House? Can't we find a Governor who has had to balance a budget and lead a state (but not another Bush)? Haven't we had enough of former Senators? Regardless of party or ideology one might ask Senator Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and Senator Hagel, how has that worked for you?

Crazy alert! Are you sure you're a citizen of this Country? (I only capitalized the C because you did.)

You sound like Ms Palin (or themerc) with 'how has that worked for you?'

Please say something pertinent or shut the hell up

No, there are plenty of them, but since when would a competent leader/administrator want the job? Used to be the two parties were trying to do what they thought best for the country. But now that half are rooting for the country to fail, why would someone want their lives, and the lives of everyone they ever knew put under a microscope, just to take a can't win job for 10% of what they'd make on Wall street?
So now any candidate who could stand the scrutiny is a carbon copy of dry toast, or has been sent to bench W. Hardly an inspiring leader.

Oh Noes, the President is boffing three secretaries, drinking 100 proof toddies, and rolling fat ones in the rose garden.
Gee, sounds like a kick-ass-take-names leader. (sounds like Putin :haha:) I don't give a shit about his hobbies, tell me whether he's doing what we hired him to do.

Infinite Monkey you are priceless. Typical liberal response to go completely ad hominem (resorting to name calling) rather than answer the questions or add anything productive to the post. Good luck with Hillary in 2016.

xoxoxoBruce, Thank you for some illuminating commentary. It is nice to get a response that explains rather than attacks. For the record, I think that is precisely the point and I appreciate your insights. Thanks!

Chris Christie maybe.

Eh, when you go trolling that's what you get. Yes, I'm priceless.

Thanks for noticing!

Now, what are your answers to the problems, aside from bitching about leadership? How is your non-productive shilling working out for you? What do you think about Ebola? So transparent.

I think one of the eligibility requirements for being elected POTUS should be former military service.

Perhaps one wouldn't be so quick to spend lives, if their own life used to be one of those lives.

[/crickets]

I don't agree. If anything there's the risk that they will be far more resigned to the loss of soldiers' lives as the cost of war. Every single general has to learn how to send men to fight knowing the chances are some will die. It is a fundamental part of their role. It has to be.

What I think wuld be good - and this goes for politics and leadership in the Uk also - would be a requirement to have worked in something not related to politics for at least 5 years.

Soooo many of the current generation of politicians have essentially been working in, or attached to politics, at a local or national level, their entire working lives. Speaking for the Uk - the days of conservative politicians coming up through business and industry and labour politicians coming up through trades and working organisations are long gone. They go from school to college, to university to a job in an MPs office, or working for one of the parties - they go do a year of internship in a company maybe - but mostly that's a company that will give them an in to politics.

Time was, prominent politicians on the conservative side had experience running businesses, or law firms, and prominent politicians on the labour side had worked in industry and risen up through trades unions - with a bit of crossover between the two. They had experience of how business actually works, of how the world of working people actually functions.

Fok yeah. Make it 10.

And to me, lawyerin' and solicitin' don't count. Get us some civil engineers, who actually know what it takes to build and maintain. Get us some artists, who actually know what it takes to inspire and create.

I like that bit as well but won't oppose prostitutes running...

infinite monkey, I wasn't bitching, I was raising what I thought to be legitimate questions. Most people answered. I appreciate that because I don't pretend to have the answer. Their responses have given me something to think about which is good. I think xoxoxoBruce raised an interesting point when he queried (paraphrasing) why would anyone of quality bother to run? Some of the other responses raised military experience or real world experience as prerequisites. For me it comes down to someone of high character, a reasonable world view and a unique style for acting to face our toughest problems. That is not up to me or you to decide but the electorate. The reason I raised the questions is because I can't think of anybody right now but God help us if we get Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush by default. By the way what on earth does my view on Ebola have to do with this?

lumberJim, I am not so sure about Chris Christie but I respect the fact that you were the only one to throw out a name. I thank you for that.

Mark Warner is a Senator now, which is a strike against him, but I remember him as a very good governor in Va. He was a businessman before that. His businesses were very lucrative, but were not your typical nuts and bolts business. He used political connections and knowledge gained while a staffer on Capitol Hill to get into telecom. You can read about him on wikipedia if you want details.

He doesn't have the charisma a presidential candidate usually has, but he's smart and knows how to organize stuff. Plus, he really was a good Governor. Balanced the state budget and took care of all the basic needs in the state. Didn't do any controversial political crap like so many politicians do now.

If he got a good foreign policy person to be a trusted secretary of state, I think he would make a good president.

glatt, I have seen him in action. He may have the appeal to fit the bill. Did he have any military background? I seem to think he may have had a son or other relative in the military. Any real world (business or other non-political) experience? I am not a partisan. I just want someone to do the job effectively and someone able to navigate Congress yet not be from Congress. I think I could overlook his Senatorial status if he has stood up to Reid. I think he did with regard to ISIS and Hamas. Interesting pick.

History contradicts many assumptions. Maybe half the good leaders had no background or experience to suggest same. Truman entered office without any reason to believe he could lead. Kennedy entered office with a Senate history that implied a terrible leader.

History also demonstrates another fact. Nobody should be considered until after the Iowa caucuses and Super Bowl. Since many if not most who are nominated remain mostly unknown before then. Chances are the great leaders will remain unknown to most until after February 2015. Any discussion about presidential material before then is mostly wasted speculation.

One final point. Facts (such as his 1999 auto-biography "A Charge to Keep ") made bluntly obvious that George Jr was be a terrible leader. His is almost unreadable. Why did America elect him president - twice? The question begs another. What are people using for facts to identify a 'good' leader?

The whole family thing is not unprecedented. John Quincy Adams was John Adams' son. The Roosevelts were cousins. On one hand, I want the best qualified candidate, on the other, I don't like the dynasty aspect.

Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders '16!

tw, I guess I am hoping that people will start the thinking now and evolve to the best possible position when crunch time begins although your point is well taken. Bush twice? Some would argue he didn't really win the first time. I'm past that, it is not my fight. Bush was admittedly tough to explain. Some say the same about Obama as to why twice. Clearly he seems smart enough to be President. I think his issue is a failure to lead or act decisively. As far as facts, that may be the point, we don't base our decision on facts but rather the themes the campaigns craft. We need to do a better job to see through the morass.

A bad and indecisive leader will justify 'big dic' actions for the most ridiculous reasons. Inventing wars cause lesser educated Americans to support such weak leaders. Only great leaders, for example, would keep us out of Libya, get us out of Afghanistan when even our Generals wanted another tens years of deployment, stopped destruction of so many world treaties (ie nuclear non-proliferation treaty), did everything necessary to avert what should have been (and without any doubt) another Great Depression, repatriate so many innocent prisoners in Guantanamo, acted successfully and with proper responses to Egypt, stopped the destructive American manned space program for the Ares, Orion, and Constellation, and actually executed a very dangerous mission to get bin Laden. Let's not forget how many times George Jr refused to get bin Laden especially in Tora Bora because he had a 'big dic' mentality and no balls. George Jr was the classic example of indecisive - until he finally stood up to Cheney in his last year.

To say Obama has been indecisive is propaganda from wacko extremists such as Limbaugh. At what event was he indecisive? Any asshole like Limbaugh will get credibility by making cheapshots. Because so many of us believe a cheapshot artist rather than a logical presentation. So many will believe an insult rather than ask for hard and supporting facts. Wackos are easily identified. They smear rather than say why with perspective - the numbers. Fact time. Where is this indecision that Limbaugh et al invented and so many then believe?

Superior leader - ie Roosevelt - were great because they stayed out of war until then necessary events justified it. Great leaders show restraint as Truman did with MacAurthur. Great leaders did as Kennedy showed repeatedly during the Cuban Missile Crisis by, for example, pulling his blockade closer to Cuba to give Khrushchev time to conceded. He even demonstrated restraint by rejecting war recommendations from all his advisers. Restraint we now know resulted in all of us living today.

In each case, mentally deficient cheap shot artists attacked that leader as indecisive. Restraint always looks indecisive to many educated by propaganda. Exactly where was he indecisive. Post every example with reasons why that is indecision.

tw, First, I hope you are not linking me to Rush Limbaugh who I have never even listened to because I believe he may well be the biggest fraud ever. I detest his style and approach. Second, the Presidents you listed were all active. They enjoyed the Presidency and tried many and varied approaches in the domestic and foreign affairs areas. I think you can argue that Obama exercises restraint (that would be kind) but even his most ardent supporters (of which you certainly may be one of them) have a difficult time describing him as decisive. Also, you totally ignored the first part of my description i.e. lack of leadership. You create a straw man and then ask me to knock it down. I hope you have some time. Syria- he laid down a red line (use of chemical weapons) then balked when they crossed it. Then sought the Congress to weigh in and help him out and when they didn't get involved had Kerry broker a deal they now tout as a huge success except Kerry Himself said recently he would not be surprised to learn that Asad is stilling using chemical weapons (research it -don't take my word for it. Additionally, do we all remember when the administration was crowing that early on in the revolution that Asad was not long for the job? That was 160,000 civilian deaths ago. (do you like that number?) Ukraine- told Russia you better not invade Crimea or else! Ooops, I guess not. Told Russia, well we are really serious this time you better leave Ukraine alone or else! Has failed to do anything to push back against Russia's violations of international law against a country that should probably have been in NATO (reference your own recent comments on Turkey for the mind blowing implications of that) Promises to aid Ukraine and has done nothing (at least overtly) to back that up. Issues sanctions against Russia that have accomplished nothing and Europe half heartedly supports because they need Russian energy. Iraq- Specifically walks away from a status of forces agreement and leaves no significant American presence against all advisors, military and civilian, and now wonders why we are in the current mess with ISIS. Afghanistan- the one war he calls legitimate- was going to possibly leave without a status of forces but now probably (even him) has the audacity for which to walk away. Spoke about a surge of forces to end the war while telegraphing exactly when that end would be regardless of the surge. What were our brave men and women of the military to think about that? ISIS- aside from the above only acted against them when beheadings began and public opinion polls soared against his Foreign Policy (or more correctly lack there of) and demanded action. Promises to arm the Kurds and use them (and others) as our boots on the ground and hasn't given any weapons or assistance and now a Kurd city, Kobani, may fall to which I will predict massive atrocities by ISIS against the conquered foe whose only mistake was to rely upon action by this feckless President. He issues air strikes against ISIS and they are getting stronger or at least no signs of weakening. Oh yeah, and orders 3500 troops to West Africa to help in the fight against Ebola instead. Enough of Foreign affairs I hope that even you can concede me at least a point or two. Domestically: I think it is a stretch to say that we were heading towards another Great Depression, even so we didn't get there. Roosevelt did everything and anything to deal with the economic crisis he faced. He acted vigorously and swiftly. I do believe he is one of the greatest Presidents of all time. Although never mentioned and always conveniently forgotten, OBAMA HAD A MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS. Thus Obamacare, which even he was calling the Affordable Care Act during its disastrous launch and roll out. I believe he is back to calling it Obamacare again. I won't include that as inaction. That was definitely action regardless of whether one likes it or not. The point is that while the democrats were ramming Obamacare through without any republican support they lost the opportunity to do so much more with regard to jobs and the economy during that same period of time. The Obama administration must share some of that blame. Let's forget that Obama spent more time blaming the Bush administration for al the ills that had befallen us. I don't remember Roosevelt laying blame when he took office, rather he acted. Two years after Obama won the Presidency the republicans take control of ONE HALF of Congress. Ever since, Obama has been blaming them for his failure to act domestically. Indulge me a bit further, after all you wanted "facts" and "numbers". The debt crisis- The President had the power of the Presidency and the Senate but all he has down is kicked this can down the road and blamed the House for blocking his efforts. We had a debt commission he "commissioned" and he wouldn't follow their recommendations. He has continued to speak, but not act, about the dangers of failing to follow his policies. Take the fight to Congress, use the will of the people to get something done. The silence (or should I say inaction) is deafening. The Fed- The one area where he can attempt to exert a modicum of pressure he has laid off like he is there lap dog. Instead of quantitative easing which just floods the economy with more and more lower value dollars he should be working to strengthen the value of the dollar by dealing with the debt and deficit, making the economy more job friendly (and not low paying or minimum wage jobs) and encouraging manufacturing not strangling it with EPA regulations. Keystone pipeline- why in the world can't he just get this done? We can argue over how many jobs it will create but even the unions are for it for Pete's sake! Act! Please! Immigration- "act (yes, finally) or I will!" er maybe not until after the midterm, if at all. What? I thought we were going to finally do that "act" thing. I apologize for the length (which I assume you will call a rant) but you asked for facts and numbers which I have attempted to supply. tw, I respect your opinion which is why I even attempted this in the first place. Be fair and concede me a point or two if nothing else. Regardless, I am always of the opinion to "respectfully" agree to disagree. As always we may have to wait for history to run its course and by then where will we be? It is at least fun to debate in the meantime.

Do you pronounce your username crw:eek:s64?

I addressed your assumption that Obama did not display leadership. That Syrian Red Lne is the perfect example. Only talk show disciples believed or promoted that indecisive leadership nonsense.

Obama drew a Red Line on chemical and biological weapons. Assad crossed that line. Once confirmed, then a massive (and mostly diplomatic) confronation caused Assad to immediately surrender. Obama organized a 'shock and awe' response that many ignored because it did not have big bombs and nighttime explosions. It only got nations all over the world immediately involved in weapons elimination. Using shock and awe the way it is supposed to be used - diplomatically.

Countries actively involved in locating, removing, and disposing of those weapons include and is not limited to the militaries from China, Russia, Italy, Norway, Denmark, France, Cyrpus, Britian, and other unnamed nations. All jumped to support or were brutally forced to cooperate.

Russia initially tried to protect those Syrian biochemical weapons. But a diplomatic 'shock and awe' was so massive that even Russia quickly changed, stopped blocking UN resolutions, and participated in military operations to remove those weapons ASAP.

A Red line that Assad crossed resulted in a massive response that was obvious. But is unknown to many informed by talk show types such as Limbaugh.

No, I am not saying you listen to Limbaugh. But your "Obama is indecisive" is what talk show educated people do when they have no idea what really happened. Syrian Red Line was a classic example of an immediate, massive, and decisive action by Obama that even got China and Russia to stop obstructing it in but days. Only talk show propaganda and lies called that indecisive. Lies work because so many had no idea how and why Assad suddenly and immediately surrended his weapons.

160,000 deaths? I don't care. Obama (and most of the world) expected Assad to fall. Assad did not for reasons directly traceable to the powers that be in the regioin. I don't care if that number is 2 million. Because deaths are totally irrelevant to what is more important - a solution. Apparently too many in the region love and worship gods that massacre people, promote jihads, destroy economies, and empower the dumbest among us. So many must die so that intelligence and other lessons taught by great philosophers, politicians, writers and religion are finally learned. In some venues, 2 million deaths may not be enough.

My only concern is that it takes that many deaths to replace wacko extremists with educated and informed moderates. Unfortunate. But we also know tens of millions had to die so that maybe ten or twenty people will sit at a peace table and end the war.

Like it or not, that is how mankind works especially when extremists (the uneducated) exist. 160,000 is but a trivial and unfortunately necessary number.

That number says nothing about Obama. It is not our problem. It is our concern. But it is not our problem. Only decisive leadership has kept us out. Eventually people most reponsible for those deaths - including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, etc - should be held responsible for THEIR indecisiveness. But again, that is also not our job.

The Affordable Care act - what it took to get done - is a classic example of wacko extremist liberals and wacko extremists conservative who even today are not blamed for their anti-American actions in Congress. Considering that we in America so hate ourselves as to let extremists dominate the conversation, then it also explains why your post did not list the wacko extremists who have no business being in government. Because they want America to fail. Some openly said so. Getting Obamacare done was almost a miracle considering how few people on the hill are moderates; because so many are anti-American.

Debt crisis? What crisis? While extremists in Congress continue to make America fail, the debt is slowly diminishing. It will take decades to undo the spend and spend and spend more policies by wacko extremists who then blamed Democrats for it. Pallets of $100 bills in multiple 747s were distributed in Iraq and nobody knows where it all went. The problem is traceable to wackos who also said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Those wackos who created it are not screaming that a debt crisis exists. While Congress wants to make it worse, the administration has been slowly diminishing that debt.

Now, what would you do to suddenly make this debt go away? I expect no definitive answer. Because none exist. Debt will be paid as it has always been paid those many times previously. By selling off American assets and lowering domestic standards of living. You see Obama doing what previous administrations also did to eliminate such debts. Where is this rumored indecisiveness? Problem is being solved as previous massive debts were solved. And being solved while Congress tries to obstruct the solution by even hyping mythical fears of debt.

EPA regulations strangle only when talk show hosts hype half truths. For example, why do cars get better gas mileage? Because EPA regulations for less pollution forced technologies that also increase gas mileage and reduce automotive costs. Details are too long for this post. But only the dumb confuse pollution crap with what was really gas mileage and horsepower increasing crap. And that also decreased the costs of cars.

Blaming economics on Obama is rediculous. The American economy is doing better that most other economies due to fiscal responsiblities institued after 2007. Decisions made in 2008 are now appearing as economic health on today's spread sheets. What any government does today will not change economic numbers until after 2018. Economic vitality now seen and restored in the American economy is due to responsible and decisive economic decisions made four and more years ago to undo the mess (a massive depression) created by wacko extremist economics.

Government cannot make economic improvements. It can make econmoic health possible. Or it can harm economic health. What was done after 2007 in a decisive manner is why the American economy now has health. Also explains why we did not suffer what should have been 40% unemployment.

Keystone pipeline is a big humdrum about crumbs. That pipe or something equivalent will be built. Powers that be in that region must decide whether they are patriotic America or wacko extremists wanting America to fail. The pipeline initially had some serious routing problems. But now many wacko extremists liberals and conservatives are fighting to obstruct it only because of an education based in rhetoric. Its not the President's job. It is their job, their business, and their potential jobs.

Cape May county desperately needs a gas pipeline to provide electricity and heat in a reliable manner. Wacko extremist claim a pipe buried underground far from anything else will destroy the environment. Total nonsense. Nonsense made even more obvious by other facts. Would you call Obam indecisive for not intervening? Why then is he responsible lfor their Keystone pipeline?

How would you solve immigration? Act on what? I do not even see a problem defined. What would you have a President do when you did not even specifically define each immigration problem?

BTW, I do not consider it a rant. But it is difficult to read due to no structure - ie no paragraphs that separate each topic.

The President is not a dictator. He has no business making trivial business decisions such as the Keystone pipeline. When Congress has too many extremists, then the world's best President in all history can do little. Where he needs no Congress to accomplish something, then Obam has done well. Obama has the same obstructions and lack of accomplishments that Clinton had due to the same 'we want American to fail' extremists now found in Congress due to gerrymandering and an increasing number of wacko extremists.

I notice you avoided Orion, Ares, and Constellation. A perfect example of indecisiveness by a wacko extremist administration. And another decisive solution that started in 2008.

If the President is indecisive, then he refused to order the extermination of all extremists. Clearly he is indecisive.

REYHANLI, Turkey — The U.S.-led air war in Syria has gotten off to a rocky start, with even the Syrian rebel groups closest to the United States turning against it, U.S. ally Turkey refusing to contribute and the plight of a beleaguered Kurdish town exposing the limitations of the strategy.

Yes, it's a crying shame Obama blundered into drawing a line in the sand for Assad. Then to save face he had to negotiate a back door deal to not lead a prosecution effort against Assad for crimes against humanity in exchange for Assad turning over most of his chemical weapons. Everyone knew he was going to keep some by obfuscating searches for them, a strategy that worked well for Hussein and his alleged WMD until we put boots on the ground. Assad is only turning in previously withheld WMD now because he's afraid ISIS will get them. With Obama is in bed with Assad, the Syrian rebels we could have trained to combat ISIS are becoming disaffected. They want Assad out as much as they want ISIS out; but, Obama won't use air power against his bedfellow Assad even though he'll use it against ISIS ... IN SYRIA!

The Turks have become disenchanted with Obama for the same reason and withdrawn their support. In Iraq the Kurds are losing ground because Obama failed to unite regional indigenous boots on the ground on the Syrian front to draw ISIS away from Kurdish held territory.

All this stemming from Obama's refusal to send even humanitarian support to the Syrian people early in their struggle because he was worried about his popularity polls if his actions even hinted at the possibility of future military engagement on another front. Instead of holding regional leaders responsible, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he's willing to plea bargain their failures and offenses away as long as he gets something in return that makes him look good on the domestic front. But then what can you expect from him - HE'S A LAWYER.

Too many Americans are brainwashed by liberal propaganda that because Obama got elected as an underdog that he must walk on water, that everything he does must be genius, that any failures MUST be attributable to someone else; unless of course, they can spin those failures into some modicum of success (as in every cloud has a silver lining). THEN they'll give Obama and only Obama full credit for it. Once even otherwise intelligent people succumb to HERO WORSHIP their minds become skewed, as if they were on drugs, and everything they say becomes suspect.

tw, I guess I wanted to get everything out so I did away with structure in that last post. I apologize.
I think we can agree on wacko extremists except you see them everywhere on every side of every issue.
If you say that Congress is a big problem or a major contributing factor I agree but there are clear lines of demarcation on certain issues and which branch of government has what powers.
I think we at least agree Rush Limbaugh is no good.
Your views are deeply held and well expressed so no one can fault you for being non-committal.
A lot of your response seems to indicate this issue or that issue is not Obama's problem but I limited my examples to those to which he stepped squarely into the middle.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on President Obama's leadership or lack thereof and his indecisiveness. As I said history will tell.
I don't ever think that my views are better or worse than anyone else, but like you I own them. I always learn something by discussing topics even if I may disagree with another view. Of course, there is always the possibility that a mind may change.

OK, but nothing above Corporal, not even Sergeant. The politicians don't want to send voters, and voters children, off to war. It's the military contractors and the Pentagon brass who want war. The easiest way for brass to get brassier from the safety of their office, is wartime. They are a hammer so every problem becomes a nail.
Even Bush was against it, but Cheney, Mr Halliburton, was running the show.

xoxoxoBruce, Maybe in today's world. Teddy Roosevelt and FDR did not shy away from service and neither did their family members. Maybe if we could get somebody like them. As you said in an earlier post though-why would anyone of quality want to serve as President?

Obama has a problem that Kennedy had. He does not engage Congress in a confrontational manner. His history is to work by consensus. That works when others are working for what matters - in this case the advancement of America.

But we know extremists do not want to advance America. Rush Limbaugh defined an extremist agenda - "We want America to fail." In a Congress with too many holding that attitude, Obama's 'leadership by consensus' will not work.

That (not Obama's overall leadership) is what Panetta, et al have been critical of.

Kennedy was similar. He was incapable of pushing Congress into passing a Civil Rights Bill. He could see strategic concepts but could not do the little 'day to day' button hole politics that manipulate Congress. Johnson was a master at that. One would think Kennedy used Johnson to manipulate Congress. He didn't.

Obama was discussing solutions to the nation’s deficit problems with Boehner. Boehner and Obama were doing what both are good at - negotiating in good faith to create a good working solution. That was until the extremist Cantor found out about it. Boehner remembers what happened to Gingrich. He should. He was part of the gang that stabbed Gingrich in the back; eventually drove Gingrich from Congress. Cantor and his Tea Party extremists threatened to do same to Boehner. So Boehner reversed himself, stopped working with Obama, and would not even take the President's phone calls. Either he advanced America by working with Obama, or played politics to save his job. Boehner had no choice. Congress and Boehner have been adversarial.

Obama does not work well with adversarials who negotiate in bad faith. That is the soft underbelly of his leadership. He was superb in situations that required balls (ie getting bin Laden, the Assad red line, convincing Generals to abandon their 'another decade of war' in Afghanistan). But does badly when his partner negotiates in bad faith - only want to destroy negotiations (ie Netanyahu). Obama does not have skills that, for example, Johnson was a master of.

Their ilk still exists but couldn't get on the ticket, no less elected. Nobody gets elected who isn't bought and paid for.

Bad attitude? Yeah, but I still vote in every election, even the local races where the same names are on both sides of the ballot.

xoxoxoBruce, I don't think it is a bad attitude and I am glad you vote in every election. I do too. We all should.

tw, you got it half right, he does not engage Congress at all (or anybody else for that matter).
You keep talking about Rush and raising that straw man line of reasoning. Few Americans want "America to fail" except the FAR left.
As Lloyd Benson said to Dan Quale, "I knew John F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy was a friend, You are no John F. Kennedy". I didn't know John F. Kennedy but Obama is certainly no John F. Kennedy.
Cantor was a mainstream republican who worked closely with Boehner and who was defeated in the republican primary by a tea party-like challenger.
You are half right again, he doesn't work well with anyone.
He should be congratulated for pulling the string on Bin Laden but he has undermined that in every single thing he has done since then with regard to dealing with terrorists or Islamic Extremists. (Except for the use of drones- again kudos to him)
The Assad red line? Seriously? After Assad crossed that red line Obama denied making the statement. Rather he indicated it was Congress' red line set many years before. Then after he failed to secure Congressional bye-in he and Kerry were forced to take a deal concocted by Russia (talk about the fox watching the hen house) that Assad would voluntarily give up his chemical weapons stockpiles (plural on purpose). Besides some chemical weapons stockpiles still exist (also discussed in other posts).
Lastly, he wanted the job, and those who voted for him expect him to get results and lead no matter with whom he has to negotiate. He is the President of the United States not President "of those who will work with him in good faith".

From
Many more at the link, but they're unanimous in their distaste for the job. And that was before the loyal opposition disappeared.

Obama works fine with other nations. Syrian Red Line is a perfect example of international leadership that even got Russia to reverse its position in only days. Listed were so many countries recruited to successfully remove Assad's biochemical weapons. So how is that not working with anyone?

To call Cantor anything but an extremist is disingenuous. He has been a perfect example of what extremists were told to do bluntly by Limbaugh. Limbaugh said in January 2009, "I Hope Obama Fails. Somebody's gotta say it." That became a Tea Party mantra.

Once Cantor discovered Boehmer was having secret meetings with Obama to solve our debt crisis, then Cantor did everything he could to obstruct it. He eventually got himself into those meetings. Multiple Democrats and Republicans agreed. Only person who should not be in those meetings was Cantor. Cantor, a classic extremists, works for what Limbaugh demanded - failure of America.

Meanwhile, those who want America to succeed also successfully fixed this economy. Failure became a Republican Party policy to vote in lockstep against virtually every proposal by President Obama to ease a recession inherited from the previous administration. We know what Obama got done was tremendously successful in saving this economy from another 1929 Recession. We also know that other nations (ie Europe), who instead used austerity, have suffered significantly lower growth and economic stagnation.

Somehow Obama does not work well with anyone? Then how did we avoid 40% unemployment? Why did we so successfully recover from massive fiscal irresponsibility? Clearly our economy is now tanking?. The dollar has achieved new highs due to an American economy that is now doing better than Europe and Japan.

Nobody can work with extremists whose agenda is America's failure. Tea party obstruction set new standards for intransigence in a “do nothing” Congress. Due to extremists, House nastiness achieved new highs. Even Republican Senators have been critical repeatedly of Tea Party antics by extreme right wingers such as Eric Cantor.

Anyone in denial of the tremendous success in a Syrian Red Line solution must be listening to Limbaugh lobotomy rhetoric. That solution was stunning, immediate, and completely successful. Wacko extremists hate success. Even the economy has successfully recovered from Cheney’s “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” policies. How can that be when Obama is such as failure?

Again, the Syrian Solution was a spectacular success by even getting the Russians to cooperate. However extremists need hate and failure to achieve power. So extremists must deny that obvious success.

Syrian Solution = Mission Accomplished

They're both for whacko extremists, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Bwahahahahahaha ... yeh, right. Putin & Obama, they're like best buds.

Agreed. :cool:

But I'm with xoxoxoBruce, who in their right minds would want to go into politics?