I've read a few articles that point out that Obama is a Type B President, kind of like a cockroach (I'm not making this up) who rolls over on its back to attract sympathy and reduce aggression. He is one of the few Presidents America has ever had who might be classified as Type B, if not the first. It is interesting to contrast Obama's style with Romney's type A stance and perhaps other past Presidents. George W. Bush, being beaten down for eight long years, seemed to be somewhere in the middle toward the end of his Presidency, yet played Type A overall. Ronald Reagan was Type A from beginning to end. Jimmy Carter was closer to Type B, but far short of Obama. I suspect he was more coward than strategic coward...lol. Carter was not my favorite President, obviously. I see his great accomplishment as inspiring us to vote for Reagan. Marc Ambinder has written an excellent article for the Atlantic on Mitt's recent Type A statements on Israel and Iran. Link: http://bit.ly/3DEvsB Both perspectives have some strategic merit, and might be fun to test out if this were just a game, but freedom and Democracy are not a game, and I strongly believe Romney's approach works better for America and its allies. World politics are a game of chess, historically fueled by national self-interest (economic and political) far more than one world Marxist revisionism, and Obama seems to be playing peacemaker by giving up all of our pieces but the King, and may inevitably trade in that King for a Pawn when his current strategy is insufficient. Note that Obama this month agreed to show Russia ALL of our nuclear weapons, and last month canceled a missile shield in Europe, not to save money, but to appease Russia, while asking nothing in return. As an over-the-shoulder player, I can't help but cringe when I see our Chess Player-in-Chief make moves like this. The problem is, trading in Kings for Pawns leaves us in a very poor strategic place from then on, and assumes that our opponent(s), who are many, are willing to take appeasement as a peace offering and call the game a draw. Would you call a game a draw if you had all the power? What if the cockroach was very charismatic and gave you a lot of money? Maybe you would hold off for as long as the Pawn kept giving you money and attack when it stopped? A classic feudal state... Creative, but poor public policy that will make America poor, weak, and possibly captive--another great contrast to Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America. (The name of his Political Action Committee.) So great move Obama, moving us half way down the world food chain. Is America more Eagle or Turkey? Or will it be veggie burger by the time you are done?
I've read a few articles that point out that Obama is a Type B President, kind of like a cockroach (I'm not making this up) who rolls over on its back to attract sympathy and reduce aggression. He is one of the few Presidents America has ever had who might be classified as Type B, if not the first.
It is interesting to contrast Obama's style with Romney's type A stance and perhaps other past Presidents. George W. Bush, being beaten down for eight long years, seemed to be somewhere in the middle toward the end of his Presidency, yet played Type A overall. Ronald Reagan was Type A from beginning to end. Jimmy Carter was closer to Type B, but far short of Obama. I suspect he was more coward than strategic coward...lol. Carter was not my favorite President, obviously. I see his great accomplishment as inspiring us to vote for Reagan.
Marc Ambinder has written an excellent article for the Atlantic on Mitt's recent Type A statements on Israel and Iran.
Link: http://bit.ly/3DEvsB
Both perspectives have some strategic merit, and might be fun to test out if this were just a game, but freedom and Democracy are not a game, and I strongly believe Romney's approach works better for America and its allies.
World politics are a game of chess, historically fueled by national self-interest (economic and political) far more than one world Marxist revisionism, and Obama seems to be playing peacemaker by giving up all of our pieces but the King, and may inevitably trade in that King for a Pawn when his current strategy is insufficient. Note that Obama this month agreed to show Russia ALL of our nuclear weapons, and last month canceled a missile shield in Europe, not to save money, but to appease Russia, while asking nothing in return.
The problem is, trading in Kings for Pawns leaves us in a very poor strategic place from then on, and assumes that our opponent(s), who are many, are willing to take appeasement as a peace offering and call the game a draw. Would you call a game a draw if you had all the power? What if the cockroach was very charismatic and gave you a lot of money? Maybe you would hold off for as long as the Pawn kept giving you money and attack when it stopped? A classic feudal state...
Creative, but poor public policy that will make America poor, weak, and possibly captive--another great contrast to Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America. (The name of his Political Action Committee.)
So great move Obama, moving us half way down the world food chain. Is America more Eagle or Turkey? Or will it be veggie burger by the time you are done?