Presidential expectations

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 4, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    To "Pagan | 4:26 p.m." you prove my point.

    Bush took out Sadam and the Taliban, Obama got Bin Laden, that really isn't a big difference because they both took out tyrants. FYI, Kim Jong Il died of natural causes.

    Bush negociated the treaty that required that all troops withdraw from Iraq by December 31, 2011, Obama carried it out.

    Like I said before, the names are different, but both Obama and Bush have the same policies.

    I am still waiting to for one of your ilk to show anything of significance the illustrates a difference between Bush and Obama.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 4, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    you're telling us BO had Kim Jong Il killed? You're giving BO credit for it.

    You seem proud of the fact BO withdrew the troops from Iraq since you keep mentioning it. What you FAIL to mention each time is that BO withdrew the troops under the timetable bush established, and BO was negotiating to STAY LONGER!

    Since it's a good thing that we have withdrawan, why do you so blindly support BO even though he wanted to STAY LONGER??

    Since this is my fourth comment, I'll leave it to you as I won't be able to respond. Please do not mischaracterize my comments as you so often do.

  • Rapunzelthebrave HELOTES, TX
    Jan. 3, 2012 11:26 p.m.

    Obama is similar to Bush in that both embraced a position of military aggression upon other states, of "pre-emptive attack", and of using a secret army - namely the CIA - to do a great deal of dirty work (yes, Bush had his secret prisons, but Obama has his CIA drones). There is a reason individual members of the military wholeheartedly do not support Obama for re-election - his policies eerily mimick - and often go farther than - his aggressive predecessors.

    Obama has signed into law the federal government's ability to arrest and hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. Obama has approved of (or not been told about - either option should raise eyebrows) a large number of CIA drone attacks on foreign nations. Obama has continued the wars in the Middle East under new names. Obama has involved the United States in wars not approved of by Congress. Obama has not renounced the "Patriot Act" (wonderful example of double-speak, that). The evidence is fairly overwhelming that Obama continued - and sometimes went far beyond - Bush's aggressive policies.

    The same military contractors that thrived under Bush still thrive under Obama.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    'To "Esquire | 9:50 a.m." so what you are saying is that you have absolutely nothing to show how Obama is any different from Bush.' - Redshirt1701 | 1:23 p.m. Jan. 3, 2012

    Reply fact:

    *'Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says' - By DEAN SCHABNER - ABC News - 05/01/2011

    *'We have been waiting for this moment': Libya confirms Gadhafi is dead' - MSNBC - 10/20/2011

    *North Korean Leader Kim Jong II dead at age 69 AP Published by KSL 12/18/11

    Oh, that's right.

    A Republican will claim these shouldn't 'count.'

    That George W. Bush started a war with Iraq based on nothing...

    *'Ex-M15 spy chief: No link between Iraq and 9/11' - By David Stringer - AP - Published by the DSNews - 07/20/10

    And Obama takes us OUT of Iraq...

    *'Obama announces total Iraq troop withdrawal' - By Ben Feller - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/21/2011

    And there is 'no difference' between the two.


    If you want to mean the complete OPPOSITE of 'no.' And that there has been, and will continue to be VAST differences in leadership.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 3, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    To "Esquire | 9:50 a.m." so what you are saying is that you have absolutely nothing to show how Obama is any different from Bush. Just admit that Obama equals Bush in ideas, and exceeds Bush in the cost to implement the ideas.

    I have had many self proclaimed liberals try to show the difference, and the best they have come up with is the names of tyrants killed.

    If there is a difference, please give it because so far I haven't seen any.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 1:14 p.m.

    Esquire | 7:45 a.m.
    President Obama is returning our nation to a "glorious land"

    nothing, and I mean nothing, will alter your views of the universe. The facts won't matter one whit.

    unemployment when BO took over - 7.7%
    unemployment now - 8.6% (0.9% HIGHER, would be higher expect for the hundreds of thousands who have given up looking for work)

    # of US jobs when BO took over: 142,201 million
    # of US jobs now: 140,580 million (1.621 million FEWER)

    average federal deficit under bush (INCLUDING off budget items) $544,673 million
    average federal deficit under BO $1.5 trillion (THREE times as high)

    Speaker of the House 2008 - Nancy Pelosi (D)
    Chairman of the House Banking Committee 2008 - Barney Frank (D)
    Majority Leader of the Senate 2008 - Harry Reid (D)
    yeah, they created and added to the drama.

    These are the facts that suport my view of the universe. I see NOTHING in them that speaks to a return to glory.

    Oh, and Carter handed off to Reagan a much worse ship of state than BO ever dreamed of.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    @ RedShirt and lost in DC, nothing, and I mean nothing, will alter your views of the universe. The facts won't matter one whit.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    allow me to respond for homebrew and esquire.

    bush was a repub (bad), BO is a dem (diety).


  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    To "homebrew | 5:33 p.m." and "Esquire | 7:45 a.m." please tell us what has changed under Obama?

    Obama's policies are nearly identical to Bush's, except bigger. So, if Bush was bad, why is Obama considered good for doing the same things only in a manner that is bigger and more expensive?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    President Obama is returning our nation to a "glorious land" after Bush the Republicans brought us to our knees. I have not forgotten the drama in 2008, when things were so bad and getting worse, and John McCain "suspended" his presidential campaign and everyone knew Obama was being handed the worst deal since Hoover handed things over to Roosevelt. It takes time, and progress is being made. Putting that same crowd back in power makes no sense!

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 5:59 a.m.

    Mr. Bob,

    It is a new year. It is time to stop trying to convince us that the country is something that it is not. Article 2 of the Constitution tells us what the duties of the President are. Mr. Richards listed those duties accurately. He did not stretch the importance of the presidency and he did not diminish the importance of the presidency.

    If every American read the Constitution until he understood what the people have asked the government to do, then we would stop having three-hundred million different ideas of what a president is supposed to do.

    When Americans do not even understand what they have limited their government to do, how will those people ever limit themselves to only demanding that the government do those things?

    It is time that everybody stopped pretending that they are the author of the Constitution. It is time that everybody started reading and pondering and talking the points of the Constitution. Our forefathers did that. They knew what happens when people get lazy and expect someone else to take care of them.

    Starting today in Iowa we will see if the people choose liberty or a babysitter.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 6:22 p.m.

    Since the Republicans have taken over the House, the approval ratings for Congress have gone down.

    More than a strong "House", we need an honest "House" who will do their duty.

    Maybe it's too late find an honest Republican. Until Boehner is fired, we'll never know.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 5:56 p.m.

    When is a lie not a lie. When a person is stating an opinion and the words themselves are a lie, is that person a liar?

    If a person deliberately understates a presidents job responsibilities, authority and character for the purpose of diminishing his ability to be the president, is he lying?

    If a person attributes the reasons for poor or improper government actions to the public servants whos job is to execute and enforce those actions regardless of the source motivation, is he lying?

    If a politician aids in the passage of a good law and they withholds the funds to execute the good law, is he lying?

    If a person creates and uses his own special meaning for words and uses those words in a way contrary to their original or accepted meaning for the purpose of demeaning or harming someone, is he lying?

    If a person creates phony issues and phony predicted results, is he a lying?

    If a person tells you he will help you, provide good for you, and protect you and then allows the bad guys to make all his promises false, is he lying?

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    J Thompson;; The corrupt presidency was that of GW Bush. He took us to war that cost trillions on lies. You praise him for it? Much of the increased defecit under Obama was spent by Bush. The costs of the wars were never put on the books under the Bush administration, only NOW is the true cost coming out. You cry that democrats blame Bush for our problems well;;; DUHH! wake up and smell the toast burning or pull your head out of the sand ( or wherever else it is) . This president is trying to turn the economy around. Around from what you ask,, Around from what Bush left him. A failed economy, 2 wars, a failed housing market, and financial system. You GOP clowns dont know what you talking about, and everyone knows it. America is sick of you lies, deciet, and obstructionism. Obama will win in 2012 because the GOP offers Nothing. Never have, and never will.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Jan. 2, 2012 3:39 p.m.

    So John Charity Spring states that "pool presidential leadership" is responsible for "an epidemic of crime, substance abuse and immorality"

    Care to point to ANY specifics on what this president or past presidents have done to cause all of these things?

    Awaiting your response.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    Obama has taught his followers well. For every problem there is just one answer: Blame Bush. It doesn't matter that Obama broke the law in seizing the property of millions of Americans (stocks and bonds) and then gave that property to the Unions and to the Canadian Government. To hear him tell it, it was all Bush's fault.

    According to Obama, it was Bush that cost millions of Americans their jobs. It didn't matter that Obama was sitting in the Oval Office nor did it matter that Obama paid people to NOT work. Nor did it matter that Obama increased the deficit $5 TRILLION - so far - it was all Bush's fault.

    We have a corrupt President and we have about half the country in his camp. They cheer him on. He dictates their ideals. He is everything that they would be if they could just hold the scepter of power for a day. Boy, would they show us! They would find that mythical rich guy and stick him in the stocks until they had bled him for every penny.

    Maybe it's too late for an honest man to turn things around. Until Obama is fired, we'll never know.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 11:57 a.m.

    "I am confident you will return our nation to a glorious land"....that would be pre-2000 and the writer obviously thinks the party of Bush is the way to return to glory. That makes zero sense to me.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    This is a critical time for America! There is only one candidate worthy of consideration in my opinion: Barack Obama!

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    I expected a change to believe in; transparency in government, realistic monetary policies, tax incentive reform, bipartisanship, an end to crony capitalism, a Department of Justice that is credible, reform bureaucratic obstruction and unresponsiveness, prosecuting terrorists and closing Guantanamo and not making White House appointments in the secretive imperial-Bush manner. Failure on all counts. I was unrealistically optimistic in 2008, but never again.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    The letter writer under estimates the power of a president. True, Pres. Obama gets nothing done with Congress. He is ineffective at working with Congress. However, he gets his way through his regulatory agencies. They pass laws without going through Congress. Obama has also increased federal workers by more than 100,000. He is extending the power of big government.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    This Country is in the midst of an epidemic of crime, substance abuse, and immorality. One of the major causes of this epidemic is poor presidential leadership.

    There is no longer any doubt that America cannot prosper in this modern age with a left-wing president at its head. Quite simply, left-wing efforts to turn this Country into just another European-style post-Christian welfare state are destroying the moral fabric of American society.

    We need a President who expects citizens to be hard working and self-reliant. No more entitlement programs which create nothing more than a lazy, indolent population.

    We need a President who expects the citizens to practice the highest moral values, and leads by example. We cannot have another President of the Clintonian tradition who has no more moral restraint than a pack of demented stoats.

    In short, we must have a President who is not only of the highest intelligence, but who also has the highest level of moral character. Left-wing extremists need not apply.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act left in place the protections needed to avoid the collapse; the fed simply did not enforce them.

    Even if they had, the removal of credit standards forced on fannie and freddie by barney frank in the 1990s and the refusal of EVERY senate dem along with a number of senate repubs in 2005 to better regulate fannie and freddie caused the collapse. GLBA, because of 23A and 23B, had NOTHING to do with it. Did you know GLBA requires banks to maintain safeguards on your personal information? Without GLBA, there would be NO requirements for banks to keep your personal information safe.

    Had McLame won there would be LOT different. we'd be out of Iraq. Our deficits would be around $400 - $500 billion, rather than $1.5 trillion. no job killing Obamacare, an under control EPA, legislation that addressed financial reform, not the misguided dudd-frank.

    BO himself said if he didn't have things turned around in three years, his was a one term presidency. It's been three years, we're worse off with higher unemployment and higher deficits. Let's keep him to his word and vote him out.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Jan. 2, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    Poor Mike R. just can't seem to comment on anything without throwing a partisan bomb or two into his post. If he had stopped to consider, he would have realized, first, that the Obama administration practice of returning illegal immigrants is certainly NOT one likely to improve his standing with Latino voters.

    And if Mike regards the GWB administration as having been "honest", he's in a true minority both in this country and the rest of the world. Bush/Cheney and the "go get 'em, you guys" neocons made a practice of dishonesty for which our country continues to pay. Where were you then, Mike?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    Had McCain won in 08 would anything be any different? I would say not a bit, other than we would still be in Iraq. The McCain would have done the exact same thing Obama has done in terms of spending and bailouts. Heck, Bush began that process. Bush's cut did nothing to stimulate the economy. Not one thing.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    No matter who wins the 2012 presidential election, or the congressional elections, or the governor elections, the odds are 99 to 1 that it will be a businessman who wins the election. A businessman who will continue and promote the oppression of people in their quest for wealth.

    So, democrat or republican or even independent the ordinary people, the working people, the poor people will lose.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    The Constitutional duties of the President are far more simple than most people think. He is charged to:

    1. Take an oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    2. Be commander in chief over the military.

    3. Make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and appoint members of the Supreme Court (with the Advice and Consent of the Senate).

    4. Give a State of the Union Address.

    5. Recommend "measures" to Congress.

    6. Convene both houses of Congress (on extraordinary occasions).

    Those duties that WE, THE PEOPLE, authorized the President to perform are far fewer than the duties that many Presidents "assume". Not only have many Presidents assumed other duties but some have willfully neglected those simple duties assigned to them - to protect and defend the Constitution. Some, including Mr. Obama selectively enforce the laws of this nation, being very careful to NOT enforce any law that might cost votes.

    More than a "strong" President, we need an "honest" President who will do his duty.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    I agree, one has to look at the presidency in context. And vote Obama.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    I think we definitely expect our presidents to be miracle workers, when we should be expecting them to only exercise the powers granted them in the Constitution. Will they "preserve, protect, and defend" that document?

    Over the weekend, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. This law does significant damage to the Bill of Rights by giving the military and police the power to detain indefinitely American citizens without ever charging them with a crime. Ron Paul was the only Presidential candidate to stand up against this disaster of a bill and stand with the Constitution. When inauguration day comes, if anyone but Ron Paul takes the Oath of Office, they will by lying the instant the words "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" escape their lips. We can know what they will do by what they have done. Namely, ignore the U.S. Constitution in favor of more government power.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    I think everyone pays way too much attention to the President.

    In reality, we need to start paying attention to what Congress and the Supreme Court are doing.

    Repub Phil Gramm was greatly responsible in removing the regulations that kept order in the financial sector. After Phil's actions, our banking system collapsed. The was done by Congress.

    Corporations are not people. This ruling wasn't made by the President, but by the courts. and it's one horrible ruling with really devastating consequences for "The People."