Obama Signals Shift in Governing Philosophy

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012600742.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

... Although this shift may seem innocuous to some, it is potentially radical and could eventually make this line the defining passage of the president's historic speech and a hallmark of his administration. ...

I get out of this that Obama is turning the Whitehouse into one giant police headquarters and putting the nation on lockdown.

I'm not sure what I think about all this. It makes me very uncomfortable though, but what would you propose to do about our crises?

:baffled:
 

Negativecool

Gold Member
Founder
May 30, 2008
2,359
43
78
39
Internet
Pfft.
Presidential policy has never had a direct affect on my life as I have yet to actually get out of school and have an income worth taxing. The other reason I no longer vote for president.
Consequently, I rarely care about anything the president decides to dicktake..err dictate.
 

Unhappy Camper

Hells yeah
Founder
Mar 10, 2008
5,012
25
178
Fayettenam Area, NC
In an institution as unwieldy as the US government it is a prudent course to cut some of the hydra's heads.

Unfortunately ... when you cut one head off it can ofttimes sprout the growth of more.


In ANY organization that is a smoothly running and efficient machine one can find a competent and coherent leadership team. For some years now the governing bodies had been unable to work together to solve issues.

I support his tenant of fixing the joint. I DO NOT support his willingness to move decision making from state and local to FEDERAL control.
 

funeeman

Spank Me!
Founder
Mar 3, 2008
586
1
16
45
North Main Street
I'm very interested in this president. Probably more so than any other in my lifetime, which of course is very limited in history. I was anxious when Bush came into power because I thought this was a man who would do what he believed was right. I realized I might not agree with it 100% of the time, but I could live with that if he truly was trying to make things better and truly doing what he believed was right based on the information he had. What I realized about 3 years ago is that he was less about making things better but making things go how ever he wanted them. He didn't care what facts where but instead tried to twist them to support his causes. He became driven by his ego, refused to examine his mistakes and try to correct them going forward. Until the last month of his presidency he wouldn't even acknowledge the possibility that things could have been done differently and perhaps should have. To me that was one of his most presidential statements.

Now. . I know someone who's met Obama. This person was an advisor to Bush and now Obama has also asked for his opinion on certain things. He states there's a great difference between the two. He stated Bush often asked for facts but then wanted to see how he could make them fit into what he wanted done regardless of what those facts told him. He says Obama comes into a room, asks several questions, several opinions, reasons behind those opinions examines facts and then tries to plan a course of action. He stated he's confident in those decisions, but he's not afraid to change his opinion on the matter if the information he's received is in direct contrast of what he thought was previously true. And. . .he'll admit mistakes and then ask what they can do going forward to correct them and prevent them from being repeated. This advisor said hes not afraid to have different people that he doesn't agree with advise him and doesn't hold a difference of opinion against them. He truly seems to want to do what will be best for this nation if the facts are there to say . . ."this is what we should consider doing". The greatest description of his so far is that he seems like a "true leader."

I can totally see this article's tone that this president is his own person and wants to hold the government accountable. I don't think he wants more federal control necessarily but wants to make sure that the hamster isn't just spinning its wheels. Unfortunately in order to make accountability you're going to have a period of time where you have close scrutiny and oversight over an area. You need to find out whats efficient and whats wasteful and if you're just retraining people for the same job every 2 years or just doing things "just because". You're not really being effective as a manager and growing as a company or in this case nation if you don't have measurable goals. He needs to examine those people with longevity and find out if they are truly effective and not just warm bodies that were impossible to fire because of red tape. He wants to reward those who do a good job and replace those who don't. But in order to do that he needs to set up a way to determine accountability. Once he has that he can truly start to change the way we currently operate and make it effective and proactive rather than stale and reactive.
 

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
In an institution as unwieldy as the US government it is a prudent course to cut some of the hydra's heads.

Unfortunately ... when you cut one head off it can ofttimes sprout the growth of more.


In ANY organization that is a smoothly running and efficient machine one can find a competent and coherent leadership team. For some years now the governing bodies had been unable to work together to solve issues.

I support his tenant of fixing the joint. I DO NOT support his willingness to move decision making from state and local to FEDERAL control.
Agree.

Funee, thanks for your comment. I did read it and see what you're saying. I agree with you that it's necessary - but like prick, my concern is that if you take power for a "period of time", with the intent of relinquishing it (or not) later, that it will just continue to mount on a federal level. That's very concerning in the long run.
 

KommieKat

Mao's Pet Cat
Founder
Mar 2, 2008
3,497
6
68
58
Hong Kong, hiding from the Kommies!
I'm very interested in this president. ..........
This has to be by far the best post you've ever made. Most of the time it's they are really stupid like "if you don't pay taxes, you can't comment on America". I mean that was some stupid shit, but this here was excellent. You're forgiven, for now.


I DO NOT support his willingness to move decision making from state and local to FEDERAL control.
.with the intent of relinquishing it (or not) later, that it will just continue to mount on a federal level. That's very concerning in the long run.
You two go on and on, especially Prick, about federal as opposed to state control over and over again, without explaining the reasons why to our younger viewers. Care to give it a go, or are you Chicken shit like Prick amounts to most of the time?

Take a look at California. You don't think the Feds should step in now?
You really think Terminator is doing a good job out there?
He seems to be doing nothing but sucking on Ronald Reagan's old cigars.
 

funeeman

Spank Me!
Founder
Mar 3, 2008
586
1
16
45
North Main Street
Agree.

Funee, thanks for your comment. I did read it and see what you're saying. I agree with you that it's necessary - but like prick, my concern is that if you take power for a "period of time", with the intent of relinquishing it (or not) later, that it will just continue to mount on a federal level. That's very concerning in the long run.
I agree that's why I'm so interested. It really depends on the individual at the top and who he surrounds himself with. For the most part (there are exceptions like Clinton) the people on his advisory board are people who aren't real known by the average person yet many of them have been in Washington previously and were very successful or if not in Washington positions in which they ran very successful organizations without making it all about them. The one thing if you look at them is they've all kind of had to be people to forge new territory either socially or politically. Even Clinton, she was basiclly the first first lady to try and tackle a hard core agenda and try to set her own policy. Previously the first lady's tried to take on social issues like the war on drugs, parenting, support for our military families. Clinton attempted health care reform among many other things that just weren't "first lady" type of issues.

I think Obama believes he's surrounded himself with people of principle who look more long term rather than crisis management. If he stays who he is as a person or the person I think he's portrayed himself as, he'll quite possibly be the most successful president we've seen to date. And I don't think he or his staff will have issue with returning oversight back to each individual department. I think that's what he really wants to do anyway. He wants to make sure each area can sufficiently run themselves long term, meeting goals, regardless of who's in power.

To me the best managers are those that if they were gone tomorrow the operation would continue to run smoothly as if there were no change at the top. I belive that's what he's trying to set up.

And for the record. . I didn't support Obama. But after he became elected I decided I better really take a look at what this guy stood for and if my life was going to change all that much like the gloom and doom folks projected. I'm much more confident in who he is now than I was when he was running and all I could get was very vanilla information on him and I could not really see his true leadership style and thought process.

Looking back one of the criticisms I had of him was his policy was very translucent and he didn't seem to have a firm course of action on many subjects. Now I see why. If he wasn't all that familiar with them he fully intended to learn about them once elected and take advisment from those he felt were truly educated on the subject. To me that's a much wiser position to have than to act like you have all the answers all the time.
 

NiBBler

boop!
Dec 10, 2008
1,207
0
66
51
NC
...explain the reasons why to our younger viewers.
This is a good read explaining how the states are supposed to control the federal government.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/05/06/greenslade.htm

Take a look at California. You don't think the Feds should step in now?
You really think Terminator is doing a good job out there?
He seems to be doing nothing but sucking on Ronald Reagan's old cigars.
California residents can remove their governor without the assistance of the federal government. He can be impeached by the State Assembly and removed by a two-thirds vote of the State Senate. The State Assembly would essentially be the accuser and the State Senate would be the judge/jury.

Or

Residents can petition for a recall election. They can vote to remove him and vote in an replacement.

There is no need for federal interference.