NYT: Republicans argue over whether to attack Obama's "competence"

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/us/politics/strategists-see-double-edge-in-raising-competency-argument-in-campaigns.html?_r=0

[Yank2133]

Lmao, the house GOP can't even agree to pass their own version of legislation and they really think they point to Obama being the incompetent one in Washington?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wake me up when the Republicans start actually proposing policies instead of just attacking Obama.
I guess I'll beat Rip Van Winkle's record.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The thing is, no one looks to Congress of all places for leadership. That's why we have a president.

[Yank2133]

The thing is, no one looks to Congress of all places for leadership. That's why we have a president.

Lol, this is like telling someone to walk after you cut off his legs.

This whole "leadership" crap is one of the dumbest criticisms I have heard and it makes me think that civic classes should be mandatory every ten years so morons can understand how their government works.

The government doesn't function because a selected few in congress doesn't allow it to do it's job.  I mean **** like paying our bills(debt celling) was like pulling teeth. All this talk about Obama's lack leadership is deflecting blame from the real reason why the government doesn't work, which is the house GOP.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I didn't say anything about the government "functioning." The only place where I think the leadership criticism of a president is valid is in foreign affairs. Maybe also in communicating your proposals to the electorate (you can say what you want, but Obama really flopped when it came to telling people what the ACA actually did).

In the end, it doesn't stop government from functioning (although I still think a Bill Clinton-type figure would've done a better job negotiating Congress), but I don't think discussions on presidential leadership are worth nil.

And although Congressional leadership may be more important, my point stills stands: Right or wrong, voters look to the president for steady leadership, not John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I thought the Republicans didn't want government to function.

[KCDem]

This isn't ancient Rome. Modern society doesn't have leaders. It has bureaucrats working within a bureaucracy. People want the trains to run on time and the mail delivered, not hear another speech about what exceptional people they are.

[Mordecai]

I didn't say anything about the government "functioning." The only place where I think the leadership criticism of a president is valid is in foreign affairs. Maybe also in communicating your proposals to the electorate (you can say what you want, but Obama really flopped when it came to telling people what the ACA actually did).

In the end, it doesn't stop government from functioning (although I still think a Bill Clinton-type figure would've done a better job negotiating Congress), but I don't think discussions on presidential leadership are worth nil.

And although Congressional leadership may be more important, my point stills stands: Right or wrong, voters look to the president for steady leadership, not John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.