In the coffeeshop I struck up a discussion with two random people by simply asking, “How do you think the president is doing?”

And their answers surprised me.

The first boy I asked had very good things to say about the president. He felt as though Obama was doing the right thing in sending more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he was dealing with a lot that was left over from the Bush Administration.

The other boy liked Obama, but had some criticisms. He thought that the president had promised too much during his campaign and that things were moving slowly.

Neither of them were political science majors (they were studying English), and they both felt like they weren’t keeping up as well as they should be with the Healthcare Bill and other matters in the political arena.

This conversation led me to two conclusions, the first being that people get bored talking about politics, and more specifically, the presidency, after a short amount of time. Our conversation quickly digressed and didn’t find its way back to the executive for several minutes.

I believe it is hard to discuss something as intricate as the presidency because of the complexities and differences of opinion. Executive power cannot be defined in black and white, and can therefore be a frustrating matter to debate.

My second conclusion is that people who don’t study politics are still interested and care about what is happening in the country. Both of the people I talked to expressed some knowledge and definitely had an opinion.

It is important to listen to all opinions and engage with different sides to fully understand the nation as a whole. Embrace diversity, as Whitworth instructs, to live a long and prosperous life.

Goodnight.

But against my better judgment, I would like to disagree with you about the Salahis, and the media that allowed them to dominate of the 24-hour news cycle during the week after Thanksgiving.

First of all, yes, the Secret Service failed epically the night of the State Dinner. But, to be completely honest, the Salahis do not pose a threat to national security. You have to be devious or at least intelligent to do so, and I don’t believe that the Salahis necessarily measure up to the “threatening” level. They are probably closer to the “attention getting” level, which is not really an amber alert.

It’s not like anyone is really concerned about the safety of our president at a state dinner, anyway. Everyone is (or should be) on the guest list and has been through enough security to rival 5 or 6 international flights.

The argument of the media is that if the Salahis were smart/stupid enough to get in, someone intending to cause harm could sneak past security undetected. Perhaps we should be giving thanks that the Secret Service had their crisis on a pair of idiots, rather than on someone who was actually dangerous.

Also, this apparently wasn’t the first time that the Salahis had met Obama. They may have met at a 2005 Polo Cup Event. They probably just wanted to catch up and decided that the state dinner would be a great place to do so; it’s formal, yet casual. Plus, they are big fans of India and famous people.

I would like to agree with you that they are getting more attention than they deserve, are undermining the purpose of the State Dinner (which was to honor the Prime Minister of India) and I agree with Aubrey, I’m tired of hearing about them.

Which would be better, for a president to have too much power, or too little?

If a president were to acquire too much power, all sorts of words would come to mind; dictatorship, communism, public education. But, considering our democracy and the way the leadership of this country comes into power, one would expect that popular majority would find a person who is intelligent and American. But mostly American.

Therefore, a president with too much power would, optimistically, be doing so in best regard to his constituents, the general population. In history, this can be seen in Thomas Jefferson’s presidency when he purchased the Louisiana Territory. Although he knew this was technically outside of his jurisdiction, Jefferson knew that the American people would thank him later.

Thank you, Thomas Jefferson. What would we have done without the great state shaped like a boot; home of gumbo, alligators and excellent jazz music?

Conversely, what would we do with a president who has too little power?

Realize that I’m not talking about wimpy presidents who choose to be inactive on purpose. I’m talking about a president who had power taken from the office.

For example, the line-item veto, presidential victory in the Clinton years, that takes power from the legislature, was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Granted, this was never a constitutional power to begin with, so it’s not really a right of the executive in the first place.

I think it would be difficult for the Executive to become less powerful than Consitutionally intended, however the Founders and Framers left room for it to expand with the complexity of government and the size of our country.

With that being said, I think the Anti-Obamacrats are worried that our Dear Leader will go off the deep end in the power pool, without realizing that the expansion of executive power is a slow process. Four years will probably not be enough, but eight might.

In September, the EPA proposed a “tailoring rule,” which “limits regulation of climate-altering gases to large stationary sources such as coal-burning power plants and cements kilns that produce 25,000 or more tons a year of carbon emissions.” In English? Regulation has the potential to reduce production and the big-shots are worried about losing workers and money overseas.

Obama has put the environment on the backburner, and he had the Middle East and his Healthcare Reform to tackle in his first year. However, I feel that the environment is going to have a much bigger impact on our future than we would feel comfortable admitting. Those damn trees can’t even move. Why are we worried about them going anywhere? Oh… wait. Because we are destroying them at an alarming rate.

Are we willing to regulate and restrict our economy to save a few trees? Not at the moment, apparently.

When Obama was asked what he would do for the environment during his campaign for the 2008 Presidential election, he seemed optimistic.

“It is critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it’s an opportunity,” he said, “because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily…We can do it, but we’re going to have to make an investment.”

If taking this opportunity to make our country “green” would create jobs and improve our economy, why hasn’t the environment been more at the forefront of the issues? Last I checked, the economy is still doing poorly.

What’s that you say? What about the Copenhagen talks? Many of the participating scientists have stated that the numbers are off and the ideas and proposed plans would be easily manipulated by government officials. Also, the monitoring equipment for the proposed checks in other countries is not up to date, leading to inefficiency.

I’m not sure what the solution is to the “environment problem,” but I am sure that if we don’t take some drastic steps to change how rapidly we are destroying our planet, it will probably err more on the side of bad than good.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/epa-sets-carbon-crackdown/?scp=1&sq=obama%20environment&st=cse

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Environment.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-10-copenhagen_N.htm

This morning on the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said something epic, something that made the Republicans really mad.

Reid compared the opponents of the Health Care Reform to those who historically tried to block women from voting, the emancipation of slaves, and the like.

“You think you’ve heard these same excuses before? You’re right,” he [said]. “In this country…there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough.’ ”

He continued to explain that when women wanted to voted, opponents said, “there will be a better day to do that — the day isn’t quite right.”

Before reading this article, I didn’t really have much of an opinion on Health Care Reform. I knew that it was going to be really big, really expensive, and whatever went into it, there would be a lot of people who would be really unhappy.

But I think Reid is right. This has the potential to be a landmark piece of legislation that will go down in history, if Obama and Congress can pull it off. And by pull it off, I mean that it is successful in the sense that people will actually benefit from it. And if it is successful, it will be a really big deal.

That is a lot of ifs.

The Republican response to Reid’s statement was embarrassing at best. They feel that the Democrats in Congress are under pressure and thus willing to push something through that is unwieldy and ineffective. While that is definitely a possibility, I think that it is hard to ignore the fact that there is no Republican alternative to the bill. They are upset that Reid is “calling them out” so to speak, in their lack of willingness to contribute, but also their efforts to slow the bill down as much as possible.

If nothing else, Reid’s comments livened up a normal day on Capitol Hill. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, questioned Reid’s state of mind and demanded an apology.

Good work, Senator Reid.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Reid_compares_health_care_foes_to_slavery_supporters.html

We last left off our great Visioneers at Jimmy Carter, which means upward and onward to Ronald Reagan. While he had a knack for making cool alliterations with ‘E’s (think Evil Empire, Elected Elephants, and Existent Economy), he also had a knack for committing to things. His main three goals could be described as a focus on a strong military, less federal involvement in the economy and low taxes. He was also committed to the Cold War until Gorbachev decided to call olly olly oxen free. Score on the vision scale (which I just invented and runs from 1 to visionary) would be approximately a 7.

Usher in George H.W. Bush. One might speculate that in comparison to Reagan, Bush Sr. was a bit more involved. One might even whisper “control freak” and giggle giddily like a middle school girl at the latest Twilight premiere. To be fair, he was the most qualified of any recent U.S. president, and because of his previous experiences, maybe he felt like he needed to run a tight ship. Greenstein says that he was suspicious of political change; Bush seemed to be more focused on looking behind him in order to avoid making mistakes in the future. To me, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. You can still trip while you’re walking backwards. Bush’s vision developed per situation and was therefore not extensively intricate. Score on the vision scale? Perhaps a 6.5.

Next up is Bill Clinton. Besides his knack for spotting attractive interns, Clinton is said to have possessed unrivaled vision during his time in office. Especially in the domestic arena, Clinton was very specific in his goals. Welfare and Medicare were expanded under his watch and he was fiscally responsible. Vision score: 9.

Following Clinton is George W. Bush, who followed his father into the White House and had more of an idea of what he wanted to do while he was there than his father did. For example, his No Child Left Behind Act was definitely a disaster, but it was his disaster. He also had ideas of stimulating the economy and winning the war in Iraq. Things aren’t looking so good today, but only time will tell the successfulness of these Bush Jr. Era goals. Score of Visionary Prowess: 7.5

Welcome to the time of the Barack Obamacrats with visions of change. What were we changing exactly? I don’t remember. But at least there’s something proactive going on in the government now. Obama’s score on the vision scale: Visionary, at least according to the Nobel Peace Prize committee. Maybe they can see the future.

Let’s continue with Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War. One could assume that there was no anticipated outcome to the fighting in Vietnam, and that may be true. Or, Johnson might have just wanted to keep the intended outcome a secret, as not to spoil the surprise ending. Whatever the case, no one really knew what we hoped to accomplish there. Also, his efforts to combat poverty also had unforeseen consequences: it empowered local activists who rallied against officials of the same ideology as Johnson, thus weakening his support on the local level.

Flash forward to Richard Nixon, whose political aspirations were somewhat defined, especially on the international stage. At a 1971 banquet in China, he said “Let us in these next five days start a march together…leading to the same goal: the goal of building a world structure in which all may stand together in equal dignity…” Nixon was ready to take the steps necessary to accomplish what he wanted. But perhaps in some areas Nixon was too motivated.

The practicality of Gerald Ford’s vision did not lend itself to overwhelming popularity; however his perseverance, especially in regards to his domestic agenda, is to be applauded. Ford got a lot of flak for pardoning Nixon, but ultimately I think he knew it would be a good idea for the nation in the future. What would have happened if Nixon had not been pardoned by Ford? Bad things.

Jimmy Carter was viewed as a good guy. His campaign promise of “I will never lie to you” resounded well in the wake of political corruption and the public’s wary opinion of the executive. However, his “lofty ideals” were rarely reciprocated in any concrete legislation, apart from his domestic human rights initiatives. Carter struggled with translating these ideas into anything solid internationally, especially in regards to China.

To sum up, Johnson had difficulty finding the light at the end of the tunnel, Nixon was well defined but not well refined, Ford had more wisdom than we like to give him credit for, and Carter was visionary only skin deep.

Will there be a Part III? Perhaps. There is in real life, anyway.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very inspirational, however struggled with conceptual and analytic planning. Especially in the international arena, he was able to rely on his intuition which worked well overseas but not in domestic affairs. Many of his Hundred Days programs were ineffective or counterproductive because the planning behind them was incoherent and unorganized.

The vision of Harry Truman could be described as reactive, rather than proactive. Instead of creating a political climate around what he wanted to focus on, his actions were determined by external forces. This lack of prudence was especially important in the Korean conflict, where General MacArthur lead troops to the border of China and ignored orders from Washington. Stronger leadership before this incident would have been beneficial in the situation.

Dwight Eisenhower. His presidency was marked with strong goals, clearly defined politics and little ambiguity. This gave the appearance of strong leadership. Eisenhower met every week with his cabinet to discuss domestic policy and he tried very hard to stay consistent with his political ideologies, at least in the public realm.

Although John Kennedy was very popular, it is hard to overlook his lack of foresight during his time in office. The Cuban Missile Crisis might have been avoided had Kennedy thought to improve relations with the Soviets. It’s a good thing that he had good crisis-averting skills. The domestic vision-lacking could be due in part to the balance in Congress while he was in office, which was not in his favor, leading him to be less than eager to form an agenda.

So if this were a contest, in comparing these four presidents, it is likely that none of them would win. It is hard to say that Kennedy had any vision at all, and both Truman and Roosevelt were too preoccupied to really plan anything with much time to spare. Eisenhower probably would get the highest marks, while still not fantastic. He gets points for setting clearly defined goals but looses points in execution of said goals.

Stay tuned for “The Vision Thing, Part II”

But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read your stupid article anyway. While I still think that Dick Cheney would be a terrible leader, I think you bring up some good points. And plus, at least he is intelligent enough that people wouldn’t believe rumors that he didn’t know that Africa is a continent. Or so we hope.

In a recent Gallup poll of 2012 Republican hopefuls, Mike Huckabee came out on top, with Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin tying for second. The result of this poll is slightly disheartening. Romney is actually a serious politician, with actual serious experience, who actually knows that Africa is a continent. And so does Sarah Palin.

Cheney wasn’t even included in the poll. But as he is the “purest” (i.e. farthest right) candidate, along with his vice presidential experience, it would be hard to believe that he wouldn’t be a serious contender if he decided to run. Sure, he was second-in-command during eight years of mostly general discontent and bitterness, but if Obama continues in his general downward trend, no one will remember back that far anyway.

While most political hopefuls tend towards the middle for maximum vote efficiency, it is likely that Cheney would hold his ground and pull Obama to the right rather than Obama forcing Cheney to the middle. It is unlikely that either Palin or Romney would have enough political clout or strategy to achieve the same effect.

If Cheney won in 2012, his victory would mean that America was moving in a direction of “vigorous unilateralism” versus Obama’s “friendly multilateralism” and hugging. But at least it would be a definitive decision, using “full and frank exchanges” and then voting. Simple and straightforward. Right?

Perhaps. Cheney still makes me nervous because of his shady dealings with signing statements and the law team during the Bush Administration. (See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/themes/statements.html ) Plus, he likes to shoot people in the face.

But let’s be honest. If I had to choose between Cheney or Palin it would be a no-brainer. Just don’t give him a gun.

“Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch ‘The Charlie Brown Christmas Special’ and our muslim (sic) president is there, what a load…try to convince me that wasn’t done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it …when the answer should simply be ‘yes’…”

As the story goes, Mayor Wiseman was attempting to participate in some traditional Christmas cheer with his family, and unintentionally was forced to watch the President address the nation about troop increases in Afghanistan instead of Peanuts and the Gang.

First, it is imperative to note that Charlie Brown is far more important than the fate of 300,000 troops, who might even be real people, and I’m glad that Wiseman recognizes this. You are only allowed to watch “The Charlie Brown Christmas Special” during the month of December and it is only aired for one night on ABC. So, obviously, it is pretty important that you catch it when it’s on, or else you won’t get ‘the real meaning of Christmas’ for another whole year. Good call, Mayor Wiseman.

Second, it is ridiculous to assume that something you write on your Facebook page, that only your 1,600 very close friends can see, will be seen by anyone else. It is very unfair that anyone else read Wiseman’s post, because obviously, it was only meant for very religiously biased eyes. Otherwise, he might have chosen his words more carefully.

In the wise words of Mayor Wiseman, “…you obama people need to move to a muslim country…oh wait, that’s America…”

If the Obama People are already here, maybe it would be in your best interest to not fuel anger and hatred towards of Our Beloved Leader. You can watch Charlie Brown some other time.

Bravo, citizens of Arlington, Tennessee. You made a great choice.