Note: forgot to quote Clyde's post in post number 34.

 

Since we agree on the leadership aspect, do you think that Obama has been able to effectively lead Congress and this nation?

 

As to the business experience aspect, do you believe that it is important that the business leaders feel that whomever is President understands private business and is pro-business? Do you believe that the business leaders think Romney understands private business and is pro business, and if they do, does his experience in running Blaine Capital play a role in such thinking? Do you think that business leaders think that President Obama understands private business and is pro-business?

 

Obviously, there has been a disconnect between the POTUS and Congress. The question should be how much of the blame each side gets.

 

The business community should be looking for a POTUS that is friendly to business and has a TEAM that is friendly to business. Again , this is my point. President Clinton being friendly to business is fine. However, the team of counselors/advisors he has is AS IMPORTANT if not MORE IMPORTANT than the POTUS' business experience.

Then should we look at those factors and apply them to President Obama, Romney and Gingrich?

 

Yes.

 

Every factor needs to be considered. In today's world of voting we're simply looking for a checkbox in many cases. Pro-life? Check. Business experience? Check. Wants to lower taxes? Check.

 

We're not looking wholly. We're adding up check marks.

Since you asked :

 

Since we agree on theleadership aspect, do you think that Obama has been able to effectively leadCongress and this nation?

 

As to the business experience aspect, do you believe that it is important thatthe business leaders feel that whomever is President understands privatebusiness and is pro-business? Do you believe that the business leaders thinkRomney understands private business and is pro business, and if they do, doeshis experience in running Blaine Capital play a role in such thinking? Do youthink that business leaders think that President Obama understands privatebusiness and is pro-business?

 

Here are my thoughts..

 

I'm not sure there is a greater/lesser quality that we need our President (of any ilk) to have. I don't believe that any one particular thing predicts agreater/lesser success as President.

 

As to President Obama's ability to effectively lead Congress: I don't agree he is solely to blame here. I don't buy into the theory that because Congress is so partisan, he must be at fault. The situation was only marginally better under President Bush, and as referenced in a post about Newt, similarly under Clinton. If we want leadership to be a trait in our President, I think that it's only fair to expect and demand the same in our represented officials. When you have the Senate Minority Leader throwing down the gauntlet and announcing in a broadcast interview that his mission is to ensure that President Obama is a one-term President only a short time after the election is done, it doesn't exactly set the tone that he's even willing to try. So, when I hear that President Obama won’t work with the Republicans, I listen with a healthy dose of skepticism on the parameters under which the Republicans are defining the term “work with”.

I do believe that it’s important that business leaders should feel comfortable with the President should understand private business and is pro-business. I do however also feel that as President, you don’t have to have business experience to understand business. Shoot, how manya nalysts and economists do we have out there who make predictions/recommendations/trend analysis that actually have no business experience? Yet we trust them, we quote them, we look to them for answers.

Honestly, I’m not sure what business leaders think about the President’s attitude toward business. I believe that with Healthcare being the first issue President Obama tackled, the business world was so anti-“Obama-Care” that they shut down after that.

In the overall scheme of things, if they don’t think he understands business or is pro-business, then they’d better maybe take stock ofa few things, IMO. Bailouts---they helped business. I don’t know anyaverage Americans who were bailed out. The new tourism initiative (for example)---that’ll help business. The stimulus funds that were sent to states for projects----kept some people working. Are these likely the ideal ways that we’d help our businesses? Likely not. But to say he isn’t pro-business at all, or understands business at all is hyperbole, IMO.

In closing, I know I will be on the opposite side of the fence than most everyone on this board. But I feel that over the course of time, business have gained too much control of our government and direction of our economy through special-interest lobbying, in particular. It’s hard, as an average American to feel sympathy with “business”. At least their interests have representation in Washington. Where is mine? (Hypothetically speaking…I actually feel represented because John Yarmuth is in Washington…I know…I’ll be lambasted for that one. :lol:)

Out of a recession when he took office, heading into a recession when he left office.

 

My recollection is that the majority of the 8 years were strong. If I am remotely close then I'd argue that it support my argument. Agree?

Then should we look at those factors and apply them to President Obama, Romney and Gingrich?

 

Who would get your vote? Mr. Romney or Gov Christie?

Since you asked :

 

 

Here are my thoughts..

 

I'm not sure there is a greater/lesser quality that we need our President (of any ilk) to have. I don't believe that any one particular thing predicts agreater/lesser success as President.

 

As to President Obama's ability to effectively lead Congress: I don't agree he is solely to blame here. I don't buy into the theory that because Congress is so partisan, he must be at fault. The situation was only marginally better under President Bush, and as referenced in a post about Newt, similarly under Clinton. If we want leadership to be a trait in our President, I think that it's only fair to expect and demand the same in our represented officials. When you have the Senate Minority Leader throwing down the gauntlet and announcing in a broadcast interview that his mission is to ensure that President Obama is a one-term President only a short time after the election is done, it doesn't exactly set the tone that he's even willing to try. So, when I hear that President Obama won’t work with the Republicans, I listen with a healthy dose of skepticism on the parameters under which the Republicans are defining the term “work with”.

I do believe that it’s important that business leaders should feel comfortable with the President should understand private business and is pro-business. I do however also feel that as President, you don’t have to have business experience to understand business. Shoot, how manya nalysts and economists do we have out there who make predictions/recommendations/trend analysis that actually have no business experience? Yet we trust them, we quote them, we look to them for answers.

Honestly, I’m not sure what business leaders think about the President’s attitude toward business. I believe that with Healthcare being the first issue President Obama tackled, the business world was so anti-“Obama-Care” that they shut down after that.

In the overall scheme of things, if they don’t think he understands business or is pro-business, then they’d better maybe take stock ofa few things, IMO. Bailouts---they helped business. I don’t know anyaverage Americans who were bailed out. The new tourism initiative (for example)---that’ll help business. The stimulus funds that were sent to states for projects----kept some people working. Are these likely the ideal ways that we’d help our businesses? Likely not. But to say he isn’t pro-business at all, or understands business at all is hyperbole, IMO.

In closing, I know I will be on the opposite side of the fence than most everyone on this board. But I feel that over the course of time, business have gained too much control of our government and direction of our economy through special-interest lobbying, in particular. It’s hard, as an average American to feel sympathy with “business”. At least their interests have representation in Washington. Where is mine? (Hypothetically speaking…I actually feel represented because John Yarmuth is in Washington…I know…I’ll be lambasted for that one. :lol:)

 

 

I love your thoughts. I really like this post. Well said.

My recollection is that the majority of the 8 years were strong. If I am remotely close then I'd argue that it support my argument. Agree?

 

I was just responding to your point about what he inherited. What he left was all me.

Since you asked :

 

 

Here are my thoughts..

 

I'm not sure there is a greater/lesser quality that we need our President (of any ilk) to have. I don't believe that any one particular thing predicts agreater/lesser success as President.

 

As to President Obama's ability to effectively lead Congress: I don't agree he is solely to blame here. I don't buy into the theory that because Congress is so partisan, he must be at fault. The situation was only marginally better under President Bush, and as referenced in a post about Newt, similarly under Clinton. If we want leadership to be a trait in our President, I think that it's only fair to expect and demand the same in our represented officials. When you have the Senate Minority Leader throwing down the gauntlet and announcing in a broadcast interview that his mission is to ensure that President Obama is a one-term President only a short time after the election is done, it doesn't exactly set the tone that he's even willing to try. So, when I hear that President Obama won’t work with the Republicans, I listen with a healthy dose of skepticism on the parameters under which the Republicans are defining the term “work with”.

I do believe that it’s important that business leaders should feel comfortable with the President should understand private business and is pro-business. I do however also feel that as President, you don’t have to have business experience to understand business. Shoot, how manya nalysts and economists do we have out there who make predictions/recommendations/trend analysis that actually have no business experience? Yet we trust them, we quote them, we look to them for answers.

Honestly, I’m not sure what business leaders think about the President’s attitude toward business. I believe that with Healthcare being the first issue President Obama tackled, the business world was so anti-“Obama-Care” that they shut down after that.

In the overall scheme of things, if they don’t think he understands business or is pro-business, then they’d better maybe take stock ofa few things, IMO. Bailouts---they helped business. I don’t know anyaverage Americans who were bailed out. The new tourism initiative (for example)---that’ll help business. The stimulus funds that were sent to states for projects----kept some people working. Are these likely the ideal ways that we’d help our businesses? Likely not. But to say he isn’t pro-business at all, or understands business at all is hyperbole, IMO.

In closing, I know I will be on the opposite side of the fence than most everyone on this board. But I feel that over the course of time, business have gained too much control of our government and direction of our economy through special-interest lobbying, in particular. It’s hard, as an average American to feel sympathy with “business”. At least their interests have representation in Washington. Where is mine? (Hypothetically speaking…I actually feel represented because John Yarmuth is in Washington…I know…I’ll be lambasted for that one. :lol:)

 

rm, I don't think the stalemate is solely President Obama's fault either. If stated often times on here that members of Congress (and the voters that elected them) have a large part of the blame. But I'll continue to believe that President Obama's actions contributed heavily to the results of the 2010 elections. He made some big strategy blunders, which played a big part in creating the trench warfare we now have to deal with.

 

I also believe his cram down politics have rendered him unable to effectively lead Congress. I have zero reason to hope that, if he gets re-elected, the stalemate will just go away. Folks like McConnell have huge egos, and when President Obama kicked sand in Mitch's face, the die was cast. A more experienced politician and leader with prior executive experience, would have chosen a different approach than President Obama. But I think President Obama, either for ideological reasons or because he was so flushed with power having been elected, was blinded to the realities of DC politics.

 

I do agree with you that business has a big say, perhaps too big of a say, in our govt system. Then again, in a time of our country's history, when job creation needs to be Priority No. 1, almost anything the federal govt can do to stimulate job growth in private business would be a good thing. And if that means instituting a pro business agenda, I'm in favor of it. Face it, without successful businesses, none of us would have jobs.

 

I may be wrong but I just believe that if a new President can be elected, with a clean slate and moderate views, he can pull enough members of Congress out of the trenches and the stalemate can be eliminated. I may be wrong but I just believe that if that new President is looked on favorable by business owners and executives, some confidence in the economy can be restored and jobs be created.

In my opinion, the POTUS should be a hired position, not elected, with a guaranteed 5 year term. The candidates should be selected by the House and Senate and hired by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should still be lifetime appointments, but made by the House and Senate. The House and Senate should still be elected positions as they are currently.

 

Remove the political aspect of the POTUS and see if things gets done. Allow the president to run the country with the House and Senate maintaining the current authority that exists.

 

I know it sounds crazy, but you widen the pool of candidates by removing the politics. Obviously, there are alot more variables that would need to be worked out, but I don't see why this arrangement wouldn't work.

In business you have a record that you have to stand upon. That is the way Presidents are judged too. These other questions are all red herrings to throw one off of the fact that this President now has a record, and it is pretty bad. When a coach has a bad record for four years (except the Bengals), they are gone. Same should happen to our POTUS.

 

Read up on some the MSNBC anchors-Lawrence O'Donnell, for instance; these people really scare me in terms of what they believe. Big schism in the country now between the left and right, and from what I have seen, two potential candidates to bring the sides together-Romney or Paul. Obama had a chance and blew it, much as the Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin have.

In business you have a record that you have to stand upon. That is the way Presidents are judged too. These other questions are all red herrings to throw one off of the fact that this President now has a record, and it is pretty bad. When a coach has a bad record for four years (except the Bengals), they are gone. Same should happen to our POTUS.

 

Read up on some the MSNBC anchors-Lawrence O'Donnell, for instance; these people really scare me in terms of what they believe. Big schism in the country now between the left and right, and from what I have seen, two potential candidates to bring the sides together-Romney or Paul. Obama had a chance and blew it, much as the Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin have.

 

Obviously I agree about President Obama. It is really a shame his Presidency has unfolded in such a divisive way. I supported McCain but after President Obama was elected I was genuinely hoping that his moderate campaign talk was for real and that he could use his charisma to be a unifying force for America.

 

I also agree with you about Kasich. What is it with some folks? They get elected and common sense goes right out the window. Fletcher did the same thing when he was elected Governor. My impression of Fletcher was that he was a good man (he came to my farm for an event when he was Governor and he really is a nice person) but he allowed his administration to focus more on "getting even" with Democrats than moving Kentucky forward. Just dumb. Looking back, I attributed it to Fletcher having no executive experience before becoming Governor. He just didn't have the experience needed to actually run something and lead. When you are a legislator, you have a very small staff which is easy to manage, and you don't have to implement and run things. The ability to lead a bunch of people with diverse opinions and beliefs is not near as critical. Then one day you become the executive with a ton of people and departments to manage and you're just not ready for the task. Make big and divisive moves and policy changes and the wheels quickly fall off.