Originally Posted by xtremerevolution
While any other past president would have been at the scene of the oil disaster, I don't recall ever hearing him nearby.
He'* been at the scene. There are some pictures and quick videos of him standing by the water with some uniformed people while pointing. Lots of politicians do those stunts, and I would have been appalled to see Obama not standing next to a person in uniform while pointing.
More seriously, I believe a president isn't measured by his birthplace because everyone is born; I also believe no president should be measured by years of military service because the US is a large enough military-industrial state as is; and I think that it'* a mistake to expect the president, 1/3 of our top-most government, to be the most experienced, knowing, and most professional person in the country.
That being said, let'* compare G.W. Bush and Obama. In his first year as president, Bush already had changed energy policy, healthcare, and education. Obama was elected in January of last year, and it'* July. He has introduced no new energy or education reforms, but he has health insurance
reform without changing the actual healthcare. There was something in the news about Obama promoting wind power, but I'm undecided on if that'* a notable effort.
What does that mean for his political career as president? Assuming he has some differing viewpoints from Bush, he should have introduced legislation for revisions of acts taken by the previous president. The "No Child Left Behind" effort was IMHO a bad idea, and yet Obama has let it be. This tells me he isn't sincerely concerned with education. Also, how did Bush'* presidency affect funding for oil, electricity and such energy policies? Should Obama, as a liberal, be more interested in raising funding? Wind power? If I may so abstract, Obama'* efforts are all wind power.
I feel really odd writing that since I actually hoped for one of two things: a) either Obama over-promises and effectively does nothing, which is good because too much change can be bad, or b) he actually does nice things in the rational self interest of the nation. In a way, hope A worked out. In another way, neither came true because quite a few of his actions have so far been against my rational self interest. Do I let his presidency pass like I live through the political careers of any other mundane politicians, or should I be concerned that his apparent indecisiveness and collapsing over-promising will cause irreversible regression?
I think that fundamentally, firing someone who has spoken against another person is an infringement of the freedom of speech. Past that, I don't hold a great opinion for such matters. To me, it'* important to observe actions sociologically and use empirical data for debates. What do you guys find is interesting or annoying about the presidency that you'd like to see changed so that no more generals are taken away?