Home / Culture and Society / Obama Absent On Leadership

Obama Absent On Leadership

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

While President Barack Obama was in Hawaii calling Americans “lazy,” the super committee is headed for failure. President Obama, throughout his presidency, has avoided the issue of fiscal responsibility. When former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) presented him with a report that contained inconvenient choices, he ignored it.

With the so-called Super Ccommittee not reaching a decision, he decided to leave the country. He went to France on November 3-4, 2011, to attend the G20 Summit, and to Australia on November 16-17, 2011, on an official state visit. BTW, two previous Australia trips were canceled due to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. So the “scheduled trips” argument won’t work here. Further, while Hawaii is not out of the country, he was there on November 12-13, 2011, hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

And we all know his (non)decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.

So now with the Super Committee failing and economic leadership needed, Obama is again absent. President Obama appears deliberately to be keeping his distance from the Super Committee. In his first public appearance since returning from a nine-day overseas trip, Obama said nothing about the Super Committee deadline. Instead, Obama made a generic push for Congress to “keep working.” There is general agreement by Obama and people around him that there is nothing to be gained by doing something that involves making so many difficult decisions to straighten out our nation’s fiscal future, like agreeing not just to slow growth of the federal government, but to reduce it.

The idea of expanding government fits perfectly with his message of class warfare that has been chosen for reelection of Obama and Democrats in Congress. As far as Obama is concerned, the taxing potential of our country has just started to be exploited. So why would Obama wish to reduce federal government growth, and the power that comes with it, if he wishes to pursue social justice agendas? The only effective way to incite class envy is to take from those who are deemed to have too much and redistribute it to those deemed to not have enough. The question is often asked, “How much is enough?” Why does the MSM cite, in one article, a food shortage “crisis,” while in another article, often beside the food shortage article, cite an obesity “crisis?” Food is but one example of this “crisis” mode of management. It, as with all crises, empowers the few to tell the many how to live their lives. It concentrates power, which is what growing government is primarily about.

It would be nice to see some leadership from Obama, even if it means he must cast aside his desire to see the government grow long enough to help himself get reelected. His frequent absences and lack of leadership are just fine with the kool-ade drinkers who want to see him reelected and government growth.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here? And, as always, readers are free to write sourced rebuttals.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by


  • Dr. Dreadful, re: comment #10, thank you for the clarification. I knew that I had not made reference to it.

    Croydon, huh? Much more when I get time.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Obama rejected the Ryan plan because, well, it was a LOUSY plan.

    Are you familiar with Rasmussen Reports? You know, the polling service most loved by Fox News because they ALWAYS show polling numbers skewed more towards the viewpoint of the Right? Here’s what I found on their website:

    ——–paste begins————

    [Paul Ryan’s] own published version of the plan doesn’t offer any real estimates past a decade from now, when he still anticipates a substantial deficit. Beyond that, he cites Congressional Budget Office numbers that indicate the budget will at last achieve balance in the year 2040 — or more than a quarter-century from today.

    To accept that projection, unfortunately, requires us to simultaneously accept Ryan’s utterly preposterous prediction that unemployment during the next 10 years will drop to 2.8 percent. As the economic sages at the Motley Fool point out, that is a fantastic claim, far below the normal unemployment rate of roughly 6 percent.

    Should that kind of meteoric growth indeed occur over the coming decade, there would probably be no need to contemplate the cuts in spending and entitlements now contemplated by both Democrats and Republicans. Happy days would truly be here again. But the conservative Heritage Foundation, whose economists first calculated those wildly optimistic numbers for Ryan, has not been able to substantiate them — and in fact have now erased the figure from its website.

    In other words, the same economists who formulated the numbers behind the Ryan budget have withdrawn their fundamental assertion, undermining his entire proposal.

    ———–paste ends———–

    But I get it – I really do understand! Obama is wrong about absolutely everything, and since Obama’s against the Ryan plan, the Ryan plan MUST therefore be a Great Thing for America!

  • you say that Obama did not accept Senator Ryan’s report. Can you tell me where that report was mentioned?

    Certainly. It was in your fourth link, to the blog article by a chap styling himself “The Old Guy PhD”. From paragraph 2:

    “In President Obama’s speech presenting his 2nd new 2012 budget proposal in two months, he again, as usual, failed to exercise leadership by trashing the serious Republican debt-reduction budget plan of Paul Ryan.”

    From where do you originally hail?

    I’m from Croydon, just south of London. Not that familiar with the Nottingham area, although I have a good friend who lives in Newark.

  • oh, well…All I can do is refer to the fact you failed to make your argument no matter how much you may think/feel you are right

  • Dr. Dreadful, re: comment #6, you say that Obama did not accept Senator Ryan’s report. Can you tell me where that report was mentioned?

    El Bicho, re: comment #7, oh, well… All I can do is refer you again to comment #3.

    Dr. Dreadful, I see that you are an English expat. I spent quite a bit of time in England, especially the Midlands. I have a very good friend who lives in Hucknall, just north of Nottingham. From where do you originally hail?

  • When an argument isn’t made, there’s nothing to counter. It’s a typical bad writer’s response, regardless of political affiliation, to mistake his own opinion for fact.

  • I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read or heard right-wingers boast that their point of view is utterly correct and can’t be argued against. If I were a psychoanalyst, I’d say that this might betray a deep-seated insecurity and need for acknowledgement; a sneaking suspicion at the back of the mind, perhaps, that they aren’t in fact right?

    The claim is, of course, patently ridiculous. If there really were only one possible correct viewpoint on every issue, there would be no need for politics or political parties, nor would there be any point in forums like the Blogcritics comments section.

    And El Bicho is quite right: just because the President didn’t accept Congressman Ryan’s report doesn’t mean that he was shirking responsibility. It’s more likely that he simply disagreed with its conclusions. Hardly a minor point when the topic under discussion is whether Obama lacks leadership skills.

  • Zingzing

    Another variation on the “Obama is destroying America/Obama is doing nothing” conservative conundrum…

  • Typical conservative posturing: claim your argument is watertight, then dismiss those arguing with you because they neglected to address every single word of what you said.

  • Typical liberal responses: the argument cannot be countered, so pick out one (minor) point or attack the writer.

  • So Congressional Republicans against Obama’s policies do so not because they philosophically disagree with him but because he lacks leadership skills? If that’s what you think, you don’t seem to understand what’s going on in Washington at all.

    I like the fact that your first link is to one of your own articles, which also shows how poor your comprehension and analytical skills are.

  • “BTW, two previous Australia trips were canceled due to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. So the “scheduled trips” argument won’t work here.”

    How about the diplomacy argument? He’d already cancelled two previous visits to Australia due to unforeseen domestic crises. Cancelling a third due to the easily foreseeable incompetence of Congress hardly seems a compelling reason for what could have been perceived as a snub to one of America’s closest allies.