If it’s too hard, don’t apply for the darn job.

It struck me that Bill-o had an agenda going into this segment from which he stubbornly refused to depart. The agenda was simplistic, almost puerile, and in the end Boll-o simply diminished Krauthammer. Sad, really.

More excuses for the unqualified president. This shows that Community Organizers just don’t cut it.

Easy solution – More vacations ! More golf ! More ice cream ! … How about a President Czar ?

When Democrats are doing a bad job, the media steps in to carry their water and make excuses. Its so predictable at this point.

This is what happens when you put a community organizer in the WH, and someone with ZERO executive experience. Palin is right, the chickens are coming home to roost, because the media didn’t vet hehimself, rather they campaigned for him.

All of a sudden the President job is too big for one person to handle. He is a one-termer.

I see the Chorus of Whiners is already tuned up. Our nation is much devoted to Nutso, Eddie and TfT for all of the constructive criticism you offer. But for such whiners, where would our nation be today?

I should add, I suppose, that the topic of this thread is Bill-o’s terrible performance during this “interview”. Of course, your whines are relevant as well, but it does strike me we ought to give some attention to the topic at hand.

It all started with Franklin Roosevelt. In 1919, the federal debt was $27 billion. Between 1919 and 1932 the debt had actually been paid DOWN to under $20 billion. From 1932 when FDR took office to when he died in 1945 the debt had ballooned to $259 billion. 1300%. Some of this was due to WW II, but certainly not all of it.

FDR, more than any other President before him, exploited the country’s economic crisis – the depression and WW II – to expand the size and power of government. Roosevelt constantly urged that the federal government was the only solution to any crisis, and only his New Deal legislation could “save the country.” He started the expansion of size of the executive branch, and it hasn’t stopped since.

And, our country was in great shape in 1932, wasn’t it?

The Real Royal King said:
I see the Chorus of Whiners is already tuned up. Our nation is much devoted to Nutso, Eddie and TfT for all of the constructive criticism you offer. But for such whiners, where would our nation be today?

Here comes the government/Democrat party lap dogs!

“has grown, and grown and grown, into the most powerful, most impossible job in the world.”

So the solution is go play more golf and let the Czars run things.

Krauthammer is brilliant. And then to think that he writes for WaPo, a leftist msm outlet.

I said everything Charles said before Obama was elected. His ineptitude was predictable for anyone willing to look. Obama was an empty suit. He has no idea what he is doing.
Almost all of America knows it now.
There is one guy in Austin that hasn’t got the word yet.

Penn analysis: The big disconnect
By: Mark Penn
November 15, 2010 10:29 PM EST
The midterms not only dealt a big shock to the Democrats, but also sent a message to President Obama. According to the new POLITICO “Power and the People” poll, only 26 percent of the public believes he will now be re-elected as President in 2012.
This difference of expectations could mislead the president if he is listening to the Beltway chatter – right here in D.C. he may just find a lot of comfort in this assessment by insiders , and that may lead to actions that don’t fully adjust for the sea change that has occurred among the general public.

This big difference can partially be explained by the different ways that the two groups see the economy and the world today. Seventy percent of D.C. elites admit that they have been affected less than the average citizen when it comes to the economic downturn. The elites see the Tea Party as purely a fad (70 percent). In contrast, those who say that the President will not be re-elected see the country as headed in the wrong direction by 82 percent, the economy in the wrong direction by 81 percent and overwhelmingly want repeal of healthcare at the top of the agenda. Among the quarter of the public that sees his re-election as probable, they see the economy turning around by nearly 3 to 1. They are the outliers of the electorate, suggesting that the President has a lot more work to do to get back on track for a second term.

In 1994, President Clinton heard the message loud and clear – he was facing both houses in the hands of the Republican Party, so he moved aggressively to the center and remade his White House and his policies. But not every president is willing to take that kind of aggressive action to change course.

The discontent of the electorate has been pretty clear since the Scott Brown election when Massachusetts filled Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat with an upset Republican victory. The administration depicted that as an isolated event based on a supposedly weak Democratic campaign and candidate. And so all the way up to the mid-terms the president made few policy or personnel changes.

It should be clear now that the public believes it sent a very clear message to the president that they want new policies – particularly when it comes to government spending and healthcare. They want him to move back to the center and focus on the economy.

D.C. elites can of course, sometimes be right over the public. But in this case the administration has the electoral carnage of the midterms as proof that the public is fully prepared to vote in the Republicans unless they see more changes than they saw in the months since Scott Brown was elected. There will be a tempting comfort to the president to stay the course; the poll shows that might be quite a perilous course.

As it has been eluded to, “one man” (or “one woman”) does not run everything. The “one man” is at the top, makes the big decisions, and gets the glory or the criticism. The deciding factors are the information the “one man” is fed, and the “one man” ‘s decision-making ability. The people will usually give the “one man” a pass if it is later shown that he made a good decision based on bad information. If it was a bad decision based on good information, he is doomed.

@gordonbloyershow
You diminished your point by referencing Mark Penn. Shows how desperate you are for you to pick him of all people. It’s like fox referencing to their reliable ‘Democrat’ Cardel to criticise Obama, its lame.

Mr Penn, is someone that was hired by the Clintons to put her in the white house and did a very bad job at it and ended up being fired. You’d think he’d be bitter, nope not for ‘gordonbloyershow’, you can’t have a genuine credible critic from someone who’s bitter and with a baggage.

Clearly, the POTUS needs to evaluate his situation. Whether or not he does is still uncertain.
He has made his personal character an issue on more than one occasion when he stated, “I would rather be a principled one term president than a two term sell out”.
We will not know for certain which he is until 2012 when he either steps down (Principled) or runs again (Sell Out). Either way, one thing is sure. His true character will be revealed.

It/s a ridiculous superficial discussion. Is it still true that Bush had more Czar’s than Obama. It was earlier when Beck and others on Fox kept bringing it up and purposely lying.

The presidency is too complicated for one man which is why he has such an extensive staff.

skyfet said:
@gordonbloyershow
You diminished your point by referencing Mark Penn. Shows how desperate you are for you to pick him of all people. It’s like fox referencing to their reliable ‘Democrat’ Cardel to criticise Obama, its lame.

Mr Penn, is someone that was hired by the Clintons to put her in the white house and did a very bad job at it and ended up being fired. You’d think he’d be bitter, nope not for ‘gordonbloyershow’, you can’t have a genuine credible critic from someone who’s bitter and with a baggage.

How very true.

Hey, would you libs mind giving us the list of Dem’s whose criticism of Obama wouild be valid to you? Thanks, that would be a BIG help!

“Though we enjoyed watching the exchange, we do wish that O’Reilly and his guest had concentrated more on discussing specific points from the article.”

Who’s “we”? To quote BOR, do you have a mouse in your pocket, or what?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Hey, would you libs mind giving us the list of Dem’s whose criticism of Obama wouild be valid to you? Thanks, that would be a BIG help!

Since you have no decision-making role in anything of importance to anyone else, that would be superfluous, wouldn’t it? Just assume any Democrat not on FOX “News” would be credible. Jim Webb, for example.

@The Real Royal King
I just ignore the one from Utah. Found it a time wasting exercise.

Of course it’s a hard job. If your a former college professor/community activist who has no clue how things are in the real world.

The Real Royal King said:
And, our country was in great shape in 1932, wasn’t it?

To a considerable extent this was due to the policies of the progressive Herbert Hoover: raising tariffs and threatening to raise them even more, raising the income tax rate (from 25% to 63%), massively increasing spending, running up huge deficits. In fact, Barack Obama is copying Herbert Hoover even more than he copies FDR or LBJ.

Hoover viewed himself as the Great Engineer. He thought he could manage the economy better than if the free market was allowed to operate without interference. Hoover’s management skills were overrated, however, especially by him — again, another similarity with Barack Obama.

Calvin Coolidge inherited Commerce Secretary Hoover when Harding died. He never endorsed Hoover’s candidacy, instead he has been quoted as saying, “for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad.” Coolidge was one our best presidents — too bad Obama is imitating Hoover and not Coolidge.

If I were as hugely ugly in every possible way as is Charles – think I’d be very, very quiet & hard to find. Lest someone (again) beat me with an Ugly Stick.

Ron C. de Weijze said:
Krauthammer is brilliant. And then to think that he writes for WaPo, a leftist msm outlet.

I won’t deny that Dr. Krauthammer is brilliant; he truly is. However, he’s a bit of a sophist at times. I will agree, too, that the presidency is an enormous job, but there are people out there–albeit very, very few–who are truly big enough for the job. Trouble there is, most of them can’t get elected.

It’s for darned sure that the current occupant of the Oval Office is beyond his depths.