Obama out of depth in troubled times

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... _blog.html

"Obama has relied throughout his career on a mix of glossy rhetoric and clever pop psychology. But ask those who observed him during his brief Senate career if he showed a depth of understanding or interest on major legislation. You’ll find he wasn’t much concerned with the details of legislation or the substance of policy debates. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who had fixed principles and an overarching vision of the major international challenges we faced, Obama perpetually vamps. Each crisis and challenge comes as a surprise and is viewed in isolation from other events. He can’t fathom that there are flaws in his own inch-deep theories (e.g., Israeli settlements are the barrier to Middle East peace) or that there are well-reasoned alternative views (e.g., our Syria engagement policy is a moral and strategic flop).

As a result what we have seen is a series of herky-jerky tactical moves intended to maneuver past immediate problems but lacking in strategic purpose. Get Libyan critics off his back? Give a speech and conduct a half-hearted war. Check the budget criticism and the rise of Ryan? Again give a speech but one devoid of fiscal seriousness and easily debunked (not to mention taken as a signal by Standard & Poor’s of the insolubility of our debt problems). In the midst of the 2011 continuing resolution negotiations, he issued a peevish veto threat — but to what end and for what reason? Increasingly, Obama seems to lack the ability to think more than a step ahead."

About Jennifer Rubin

I'm a labor-lawyer-turned-blogger who believes in limited government, in free markets and that nearly all wisdom can be found in the Godfather movies and the Torah.

And we should give credence to her personal opinion because.... ???

kresspin wrote: About Jennifer Rubin

I'm a labor-lawyer-turned-blogger who believes in limited government, in free markets and that nearly all wisdom can be found in the Godfather movies and the Torah.

And we should give credence to her personal opinion because.... ???

She's a person, and her opinion is just a valuable as yours.

Somehow conservatives don't follow that principle... when it comes to opposing views.

kresspin wrote: Somehow conservatives don't follow that principle... when it comes to opposing views.

And liberals do? Please.

Nobody that matters wrote: She's a person, and her opinion is just a valuable as yours.

I hope you are kidding.

Everyone may be entitled to an opinion, but that in no way implies that all opinions are equally valuable. Would you rather take your heart surgeon's opinion or that of your hairdresser regarding those chest pains you've been having?

kresspin wrote: Somehow conservatives don't follow that principle... when it comes to opposing views.

I'm still waiting for something substantiative from you instead of dogmatic rhetoric. If you do not like the opinion, fine, but offer a rebuttal for us to consider.

Some leaders are very hands on, assembling their staffs and working late nights, Clinton is a good example of this. The press used to joke that if Dominos started showing up at the White House, Clinton was working on something new. In this way, it was very public seeing him work.

Others work by themselves and bring in individuals to help them form decisions.

But others, like Obama, delegate, he let Reid & Pelosi work out Obamacare.

A woman who worked with him on the Harvard Law Review says he used to show up on Monday, find out what people were working on, hand out tasks and then you wouldn't see him again.

AspenValley wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote: She's a person, and her opinion is just a valuable as yours.

I hope you are kidding.

Everyone may be entitled to an opinion, but that in no way implies that all opinions are equally valuable. Would you rather take your heart surgeon's opinion or that of your hairdresser regarding those chest pains you've been having?

So basically what you are saying is that your opinion is just as worthless as hers (unless you can prove your credentials). What is the point of any of us giving an opinion on anything beyond our experience or education? If that's the case, we should all just keep our worthless opinions to ourselves.

I prefer to debate opinions with a mixture of common sense and factual events past and present. Obama has lots of opinions on a whole lot of critical policies of which he had no experience with prior to being elected. So how much value should we give to his opinions?

SS109 wrote: A woman who worked with him on the Harvard Law Review says he used to show up on Monday, find out what people were working on, hand out tasks and then you wouldn't see him again.

I wouldn't necessarily consider that a bad thing. That is almost an exact description of how the most productive, creative, synergistic environment I ever worked in functioned.