26 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
I don’t want to believe that “compassionate, sensitive, intelligent people do not make good leaders.” Maybe if I spend more time on it, I can come up with some counterexamples… All I know is that I read this book before the election and it convinced me that “here’s a guy who really gets it!” But in practice, he hasn’t impressed me — neither with his principles nor with political savvy. If people here can convince me that my assessment is wrong, I’d be happy to hear their case. I’d rather see him succeed than fail, for the sake of the country and beyond. |
I agree Chanson. Totally. |
I hope he fails. |
I don’t get the Carter Obama comparison. |
I live near Independence, Mo, the home of Harry Truman. I toured his presidential library. It was stunning the difficult pres. he had. Sure seems like everyone hated him. As I went through the time line of events, I was thinking, “Holy Crap. This poor man didn’t have a minutes peace his whole presidency.” I liked him, a lot. I also toured Abraham Lincoln’s pres. library in Springfield, Il. Pretty much thought the same things about him. My annoyance with that place was that two displays had misspellings on the placards. For a 10 million dollar exhibit hall, you’d think someone could fix the spelling. One of the placards on the “Trail of Hope” in Nauvoo has a misspelling, too. Probably will never get fixed and I will always be riled up. I need to work on getting a life. Meanwhile, I hope Obama does well. I don’t want to wish anymore hardship on our country. |
He just reminds me of Jimmy Carter—he means well, he thinks he’s more powerful than he is, he underestimated the job. He’s a bit weak as a leader. I think he’s going to be a one term president. Again, though, can a strong outspoken black man get elected today? Don’t know, just asking. |
I voted for Obama because of this book. I really agree with his view of the world! But you’re right – it’s hard to translate ideals into the real world. That’s what makes people like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa so incredible – or maybe it was God placing the right person at the right place at the right time. Thanks for the review – I love your take on things! |
I’m sure I’m misquoting her, but I always thought Hillary was right on the money when she tried to compare herself to LBJ and Obama to Kennedy — LBJ was the guy who got it done… When will we realize that a ghostwriter does not make a good president? |
Yeah but “Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa” did not have to work within the constraints of being president. I am NOT saying Obama is in the same realm as these people, just that I think AMERICANS have a very unrealisitic idea of what powers our President actually has. When we condemn him for not being an engineer with a scuba suit and single-handedly dealing with the BP blowout, or magically controlling the market forces and American’s appetite to spend money, or even convincing Congressman to vote in Congress in a way that they believe is not in their personal best interest to get re-elected, we are condemning Obama for things that a U.S. President has no control over. Annegb–you know he was a university professor, right? And you remember that pirate hostage situation? Did the command to use snipers to take out the pirate not satisfy your curiosity about if he can be decisive? I realize that it is not the same scale as the Iranian hostage situation, but it was not a day in the park, either. Personally, I cannot imagine adjudicating someone’s religious belief or devotion. I don’t care how someone discusses their faith or does not–I am in no position to read their heart. I am sorry that you feel you can, because when we meet, I may well be found lacking. GWB is accepted as a born again Christian because he said he was; although many of his actions as a President were unethical and immoral (ex. getting a whole country into war just to avenge your daddy), we still allow him that title. Even if Obama was the kind of guy that just WANTS to believe (and I don’t think he is–I just don’t think he grew up around religious expression and he doesn’t feel comfortable with it), as Christians, that is our bar for faith. (Sorry this clip includes so much speculative commentary–I just wanted Bush’s own words and found them here). |
I think you misunderstand me ES0. I’m not judging him–I don’t care that he doesn’t seem to have a deep faith. I think he (and many others) was pushed into declaring his faith because a non-believer can’t get elected. His choice to address his faith in the book and to label himself a believer gives me permission to review it on a critical level. I simply don’t buy that he’s a committed Christian. And it saddens me that politics has become such that people can’t be honest. Like I said, my atheist friends are better people—better “Christians” than many of the pronounced Christians I know. I didn’t know he was a professor when I thought he’d make a good one. Queuno, I looked up the ghostwriter allegations. Maybe. But there’s only one voice in this book and it sounds like his voice to me. Again I hate the polarity between the parties. Republicans want Democrats to fail and vice versa. They each think the other is evil. I’m sick of it. I want moderation and cooperation and compromise. I think the level of hatred does our country far more damage than any misguided policy. |
And you know I never bought Bush as a true believer either. I want to believe in my president–whoever he is. Clinton spoiled that for me because I really liked him and he turned out to be such a cad. I still find myself attracted to him! I was listening to him today and he talks such a good game. I went visiting teaching the other day and mentioned I was reading this book and my friend said, “You know, I haven’t made my mind up about Obama yet. I’m not on that ‘Obama sucks’ bandwagon.” I wonder if there are a lot like us out there. But living in the heart of Mormonism, here in southern Utah, that’s a pretty radical stance. Again I hate the polarity. Does nobody any good. I wish Rish would get run over by a bus. Or have his voice box removed. |
Who was a president of great faith? Carter? Did it help him? How can we really judge a president, how can we really know what is in his heart? Security has made going to church almost impossible for any president. Few of our great presidents were really men of great faith. Washington certainly wasn’t, nor was Lincoln, although Lincoln became more a man of faith as the war dragged on. Furthermore, has anyone noticed how many presidents have come from dysfunctional families of one kind or another? Reagan’s father was a drunk. Ford’s father and Clinton’s father were not there. Roosevelt was a mama’s boy. Bush claimed to be born-again and I take him at his word, although his personality glowed with the shine of an ex-addict, as does Beck’s. We’re talking about something here that is very complicated and cannot be reduced to the size of a bumper sticker. |
I thought Washington and Lincoln believed. |
ESO: many of his actions as a President were unethical and immoral (ex. getting a whole country into war just to avenge your daddy) Oh the irony that you would say this in a comment complaining about judging other people. Attributing the worst possible motive to someone when plenty of other possible motivations exist is precisely the same as judging someone’s belief or devotion. |
Dave, the more time passes, the madder I get at George Bush. I didn’t support the war in Iraq. Even if was about weapons of mass destruction! Based on that, we should be at war with China and Korea. Somalia and Sudan. So many places where evil dictators destroy lives call out for justice. Now, I think he WANTED to believe his cause was righteous; and so he didn’t do his homework. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say unethical and immoral, but I would call it an emotionally driven and childish decision. I think every once in awhile of Laura Bush’s question “you gonna get him. Bushie?”referring to his “dead or alive” statement about Bin Laden. She knows him better than we do. The war in Iraq has cost our country more than we had to spare in dollars and cents and the lives of our young people who died there. But, I call myself a Christian and I do–have done terrible things. That wasn’t the point of my decision about Obama’s Christianity. The talk was “is he a Muslim?” He’s gone to great lengths to deny that and to call himself a Christian. I decided, based on my reading, that he’s more of an agnostic who clearly sees that many of the greatest crimes are committed in the name of religion. Here again the public’s unrealistic demands on our president and the awful political process in our country causes candidates to be dishonest. You know where this is really going to be an issue? Next presidential election–where we will hear our own religion villified as a cult, should Romney run. Put Palin’s born-again crew in there and the names are going to fly all right. Which begs the question: was the Constitution framed to give us freedom FROM religion rather freedom OF religion? |
was the Constitution framed to give us freedom FROM religion rather freedom OF religion? Probably would have depended on which founding father you talked to. They ran the gamut from really quite religious to atheists (though they wouldn’t have called themselves that at the time–they may have put in protections against a religious test in the constitution, but they still had to appear religious to their constituents). I think the founders would have wanted us to answer that question for our own time, too. I think they recognized society would change and their intentions would have to give way to the intentions of later generations. |
Fair enough, annegb. Jacob–those were GWB’s own words. I was not ascribing any motivation to him. I do, however, judge many of his actions and decisions as unethical and immoral but I cannot judge his heart. |
ESO, wow that is big news to me. Can you give me a reference for where Bush said he took the country into war “just to avenge his daddy.”? |
Follow the link and you can hear it coming from his mouth. |
ESO, you have got to be kidding me. To say he took the “whole country into war just to avenge your daddy” is a gross (seemingly deliberate) misrepresentation of what he says in that quote. To then claim that all you are doing is reporting what he said in his own words is flat out ludicrous. You are a lawyer, right? Here is the quote:
This statement that Saddam tried to kill his dad was not given as the motivation for taking the country to war (much less the primary or only reason as implied by your “just to avenge his daddy”). As evidence for the fact that Saddam’s hatred was directed at the US he offered the fact that Saddam tried to assassinate the sitting president of the United States, who he refers to as “my dad” very likely because we all know who his dad is and it would be weird for him to refer to him as “George H. W. Bush” or something like that. GWB gave several reasons for going to war with Iraq and many prominent democrats at the time supported that decision based on their own review of the situation. To ignore all of that and say that his real reason was to avenge his daddy is to read his mind and heart just as much the stuff you were complaining about. |
GWB gave several reasons for going to war with Iraq… …which in the meantime have been thoroughly discredited. In light of what we now know, it seems that “ignoring all that” and speculating about the “real reason” is a perfectly reasonable response. |
Peter LLC, there is a vast and obvious difference between the justifications turning out to be based on bad intel and their not being the actual justifications at the time we went to war. And I mean *obvious*. |
Wouldn’t vengeance require GWB sr. to have been killed in the first place? Just sayin. |
Thanks for the primer, Jacob J., but I don’t believe “bad intel” accurately describes the basis of the justifications presented back then as there was also plenty of good intel floating around the public record. For example: On 01/09/2003 the IAEA reported to the UNSC that “to date, no new information of significance has emerged regarding Iraq’s past nuclear programme” and “to date, no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities has been detected, although not all of the laboratory results of sample analysis are yet available.” On 01/27/2003 the IAEA reported to the UNSC that “we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s.” On 02/14/2003 the IAEA reported to the UNSC that “the IAEA concluded, by December 1998, that it had neutralized Iraq’s past nuclear programme and that, therefore, there were no unresolved disarmament issues left at that time. Hence, our focus since the resumption of our inspections in Iraq, two and a half months ago, has been verifying whether Iraq revived its nuclear programme in the intervening years. We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq.” On 03/07/2003 the IAEA reported to the UNSC that “after three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.” Not that the quality of the pre-war intelligence appears to have mattered much anyway in light of Bush’s 2004 declaration that “knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq [...] The decision I made was the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.” |
Annegb: to the question of whether an intellectual can be a great leader, I submit dieter uchtdorf |
#23, No. #25—well, he’s the total package, isn’t he? For real. |