I haven't read the piece and have no idea if Obama is this competitive (or if this is at all unusual for politicians - it may be pretty standard). However, what's with the complaint that Obama plays golf about once every two weeks? That's all that 104 times comes down to in a four-year term of office. Yes, I know he hasn't quite finished the term, but the rate is still closer to once every two weeks than it is to once a week, and even once a week would not necessarily be excessive. Some people like to play golf or swim or whatever, for fitness and relaxation. It would actually be more worrying if he never did anything but focus on being president.

Bush kicked off two wars and then started hanging out at the cattle-less ranch in Texas.

This is a very ugly hour in representative government.

Nope. Not fair at all to say that Obama spent 3 months golfing. Do you really think that on the days that he golfs, that afterwards he just heads back to the White House and watches TV? He's on the phone in the limo, he's probably taking calls on the course, and he goes back to the white house and puts in a full day of work afterwards. And even though I didn't think Bush was much of a president, I'm sure the same thing was true of his trips to Crawford. The President, whatever you think of his policies, is on-call 24/7.

And on the main topic, has there ever been, will there ever be a president who was humble and non-competitive?

I don't begrudge presidents downtime. Numerous studies have shown that people work better when they get breaks.

I once read that Old Man Bush, after leaving office, remarked that he no longer won every game of golf he played.

I don't care that the guy golfs. I do care that he thinks he can shovel shit down our throats and get away with it. Which he has been, so far.

I'll have to go hunt it up, but there was a study published recently on how people who are working in jobs at which they are incompetent systematically overrate their abilities, and underrate the abilities of those around them. Of course, this is also a characteristic of the cluster B personality disorders.

Every two weeks to go golfing would not be so bad except this is not his only "leisure time" activity. Shooting hoops, playing cards, tweeting, watching TV, telling us that the "police acted stupidly", picking fights with reporters (especially Fox News, ha!); Not to mention the amount of time (and tax dollars) spent going away on vacation.

So, yea, Obama does spend a lot of time wasted going after trivial stuff.

This wouldn't be so bad if he were handling everything so well; but, the economy is a mess, our foreign policy is mess, our credit rating has been down-graded, far too many out of work (or underemployed), etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, if I am being selfish here; but, Obama's improvement of his bowling scores, improvement of his golf game, etc, don't help out me one damn bit!

While defending Obama is not high on my list, or even on my list for that matter, most people get two days a week off their job. Now while being president is 24/7, I don't remember the clause where it makes one a slave. So if this or any president manages to have some fun time once or twice a week, I see little cause for complaint. And as pointed out above, he is likely mixing work with his play.

And on the main topic, has there ever been, will there ever be a president who was humble and non-competitive?

Truman. We'll not see the likes of him again.

Evidently, presidents aren't allowed to play golf, cards or go bowling.

The "police acted stupidly" comment was a response to a question that was asked of him, which is very much on his list of presidential duties.

And as for his vacation time, he doesn't hold a candle to Bush, who spent seven of his first nine months on vacation.

Obama's lack of experience in setting up and running a large organization is killing him.

He has vested too much power in a small cadre of advisors (mostly Valerie Jarrett) who don't have the specific expertise to counsel him in the wide variety of matters that cross a president's desk.

His White House is factionalized and has difficulty making a decision. Subject matter experts often find they cannot get time with the president to discuss issues (if Valerie Jarrett disapproves of you, forget getting face time with the president).

His arrogance and competitiveness hurt him by crippling his ability to get the best out of the people who work for him. He hires experts and almost immediately lets them know he thinks he's smarter than they are and could do their jobs better than they could. And then, as if to prove it, he ignores a big chunk of their advice.

And the bowling thing? Do you really want to hear that the president spent hours perfecting his bowling game in order to win a birthday tournament - instead of taking a briefing about the latest situation in the Middle East or schmoozing recalcitrant Congressmen into passing his jobs bill?

Watch television to see where Obama gets his vision of what a chief executive does. The CEOs on television always have plenty of time for golf, extramarital affairs, drinking heavily, and dinner parties. Only occasionally, do they do anything resembling real work - which usually consists of delegating tasks and yelling at flunkies.

Obama is a teenager playing at being an executive.

Truman. We'll not see the likes of him again.

Truman appreciation is a recent phenomenon.

Harry Truman's job approval rating in the final year of his presidency dropped to 22%. Until George W. Bush, that was the lowest ever job approval level reached by a sitting president. Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace twenty years later, bottomed out at 24%.

Conan: His arrogance and competitiveness hurt him by crippling his ability to get the best out of the people who work for him. He hires experts and almost immediately lets them know he thinks he's smarter than they are and could do their jobs better than they could.

I think you're confusing Obama with Phil Gramm.

I think Truman's low approval ratings had to do mostly with firing General MacArthur (which was actually something he should have done sooner).

Truman appreciation is a recent phenomenon.

Maybe for the rest of you; I've always liked him.

I think you're confusing Obama with Phil Gramm.

Nope. No confusion.

Obama really does think he's the smartest person in the room - any room. And, from all accounts, he takes pains to let people know it.

He's thin-skinned and can't stand being corrected or criticized.

I think the stories that will come out when Obama is no longer in a position to retaliate will astound and embarrass the people who have been so staunchly defending him as smart and easy going.

Besides, Phil Gramm was never a president or chief executive. His arrogance is his alone.

And you gotta give props to a guy who resigns his House seat when the Democratic Party kicks him off the budget committee for supporting Ronald Reagan and then runs for his own vacated seat as a Republican and wins handily.

Lieberman did essentially the same thing when the Democratic Party refused to support him for re-election. Lieberman, however, ran as an independent.

This is why the Democrats have swung so far and hard to the left. They no longer tolerate dissenting opinions within the party. Stray outside the orthodoxy fence and risk censure.

I think Truman's low approval ratings had to do mostly with firing General MacArthur (which was actually something he should have done sooner). ~ Patrick

Firing MacArthur did put his ratings in the tank, but they were headed there anyway.

Truman was president during a particularly difficult time when probably no president could have been truly loved.

Unemployment was still high. The supply of goods in the market was still low since US industry was still retooling from its wartime footing. The inflation rate was high as prices rebounded from wartime controls. Union contracts, suspended during the war, were put back into effect, raising the cost of goods overnight.

In addition, Truman completed the realignment of the Democratic Party to the left, forcing many conservative Democrats to switch to the Republican Party.

He earned enmity from many (and not just in the South) with his executive order integrating the military.

=========================

I do agree with you on MacArthur. MacArthur should have been fired long before he was.

When a general starts conducting foreign policy and threatening to take the country to war with another country (as MacArthur was doing with China), he needs to go.

As far as the Chinese could tell, a politically-powerful general who was loudly and publicly advocating war with them was rapidly approaching their border with a large multi-national army. And the US had invaded Russia after the 1917 Revolution in an effort to overthrow the Bolsheviks. Hence, for all the Chi-Coms knew, MacArthur was headed to Beijing.

MacArthur defied orders and got tens of thousands of troops slaughtered. It must have truly stuck in his craw to realize that had he done what Truman had ordered, those mass casualties would have probably been avoided.

But MacArthur's problems with the President are nothing new among generals. Generals have had problems taking orders from Presidents -- mere civilians -- since at least McClellan.

Just curious as to how you know so much about Obama's character. Not disagreeing necessarily. I think the presumption of his running for President which his lack of experience suggests supreme arrogance. To say nothing of his apparent belief that he could actually put an end to the partisan feuding in Congress. Those that accuse him of having a messiah complex may have a point.

"In addition, Truman completed the realignment of the Democratic Party to the left, forcing many conservative Democrats to switch to the Republican Party."

I beg to differ with the last half of that sentence. Prior to Reagan, the Republican Party was a nonentity in most of the South. In Alabama, the Democratic primary was effectively the general election; almost nobody voted in the Republican primary because if you did that you may as well not vote at all. Yes, Goldwater and Nixon carried some of these states, but there were zero coattails: Alabama just in 2010 elected its first Republican-majority legislature since Reconstruction.

"The "police acted stupidly" comment was a response to a question that was asked of him, which is very much on his list of presidential duties."

Um, yea, answering questions is within his duties (funny how is only interviewing "softly" now though). But, this supports the premise that Obama is a know-it-all. Obama was NOT there and so he really doesn't know what exactly took place - yet, he answered that question as the omnipotent God that he thinks he is!

I do not think presidents should play golf, or cards, or in any way relax. He spent hundreds of MILLIONS getting this job. The least he could do would be to DO the job. I want someone who spends every waking hour working for us. It's 4 years, they weren't conscripted. Save the golf for retirement.

I beg to differ with the last half of that sentence. Prior to Reagan, the Republican Party was a nonentity in most of the South.

I shouldn't have said "completed" as if Truman finished the job. Truman completed the laying of the groundwork. He broke the power of the conservative Democrats at the national level.

Following Truman, the Democrats ran a series of liberals for president: Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, etc.

By the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, conservative Democrats had almost no voice left in the national party. The national party now stood firmly in favor of the welfare state, cutting defense spending, liberalizing social strictures, legalizing abortion, and expanding union membership.

Local politics in the South, however, remained Democratic. The local machine was Democratic. The local officeholders were Democratic.

A growing shift of the population base to the warmer Sun Belt aided the Republicans in making headway into the South.

Then the national Democrats started feting Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Jerry Brown, and a host of leftists. It was hard for an aging good ol' boy power broker to tell his constituents to support the party of "Hanoi Jane" when their children were dying in rice paddies.

The final straw was when Carter openly mocked evangelical and values voters, driving the holdover Southern Democrats into Reagan's camp. Reagan's coalition of evangelical voters, Rockefeller Republicans, and Goldwater Republicans would keep his party in the presidency for twelve years.

Ross Perot would break up that coalition in 1992, handing the presidency to Clinton who ran as a fiscally-conservative moderate.

The "police acted stupidly" comment was a response to a question that was asked of him, which is very much on his list of presidential duties.

No. It was him running his mouth without having the first clue about what went down.

Momof4: I do not think presidents should play golf, or cards, or in any way relax. He spent hundreds of MILLIONS getting this job. The least he could do would be to DO the job. I want someone who spends every waking hour working for us. It's 4 years, they weren't conscripted. Save the golf for retirement.

You're out of your mind.

Charles: Um, yea, answering questions is within his duties (funny how is only interviewing "softly" now though). But, this supports the premise that Obama is a know-it-all. Obama was NOT there and so he really doesn't know what exactly took place - yet, he answered that question as the omnipotent God that he thinks he is!

Yeah, keep digging. If you change your position often enough, you're sure to win a point somewhere. First, you suggested that this is something Obama likes to do, as if he makes it his business to routinely comment on police activities, when you're referring to an isolated incident three years ago.

And unfortunately, you're wrong again. Obama made it clear, in answering a question that was put to him during a press conference, that he wasn't there and doesn't have all the facts on the incident. So, no, he did not pass judgment like the "omnipotent god that he thinks he is." You obviously never watched a video of Obama fielding the question and prefer to spout conservative talking points.

jimg: No. It was him running his mouth without having the first clue about what went down.

No, he was asked about the incident during a press conference about someone he knows personally. And he did make it clear, before expressing his opinion, that he wasn't there and doesn't have all the facts.

Word of advice, Charles and jimg, on the subject of people who run their mouths without having all the facts: try watching the video of the incident yourselves! Shocking, I know, that someone should actually watch the president's fielding the interview for themselves, instead of spouting the conservative talking points.

Conan: Ross Perot would break up that coalition in 1992, handing the presidency to Clinton who ran as a fiscally-conservative moderate.

Actually, had it not been for Perot, Clinton would have won by an even greater margin. Perot took more votes from Clinton than Bush. Because of Perot, Clinton now has the distinction of being the only president who won two terms and in neither case, won the majority of the vote.

As for Clinton being fiscally conservative, considering he produced a balanced budget, that is not wholly without merit. "Moderate" becomes a bit harder to defend. About the only thing I can think of that works in his favor as a "moderate" is the fact that he supports the death penalty.

By the way, if you truly want an incident that exposes Obama for the self-righteous jackass that he is, try the beer summit that followed, in which Obama felt that there was a "teachable moment." Indeed there was, but Obama had nothing to teach. He would have been better served if he sought to learn something.

I'm not out of my mind, Patrick. A very large segment of the population, including a lot of CEO's, don't ever play golf or take off on vacation or host poker night. And we function just fine. Expecting us to pay for others to have what we do not, is insane. We pay him, he can damn well do his job or not run for it in the first place.

Some people don't take a day off in their whole lives. Or at least didn't, until large corporations took over most dairy farming. But yeah, 4 years, that's soo tough. Especially a rough job like President, performing such hard manual labor all day. Oh, wait....

Really? Where is this legion of workaholics who never, ever devote a single minute of their lives to a leisure activity?

I'm dying to meet one, because frankly, I don't think they exist. And if they do, why didn't you vote for one of them?

And I didn't hear these yelps of outrage from you when Bush, who is and remains history's most vacationed president, hit the links, went fly-fishing, was talking to cows (yes, he admitted that cows consider him a good listener), cleared brush on his ranch, discussed with reporters the differences between his two dogs.

If you object to vacationing presidents, fine. Be consistent then. You should have been burning Bush (not to be confused with the burning bush that spoke to Moses) in effigy.

"We"? Very interesting. So, you never, for one nanosecond, allow yourself a single departure from your job as a mother of four? No television, music, listening to the radio...or posting on blogs?

Oops.

Patrick;

Oh please, please, please award me a point. Two more points and I get a free toaster!

Actually, had it not been for Perot, Clinton would have won by an even greater margin. Perot took more votes from Clinton than Bush.

Here's a rebuttal borrowed from someone else:

"All of that may be true, but none of that means that Perot didn’t help to create a political climate that would ultimately lead to a Clinton victory."

"First, Perot spent most of 1992 hammering President Bush over his stewardship of the country. He was free to attack the president unabated at a time when Bill Clinton was still batting away fellow Democratic challengers. So effective was his case to the American people that he topped many mid-summer polls in 1992, beating both Bush and Clinton. The wounds inflicted on Bush by Perot certainly helped take the president down several notches, making Clinton’s victory that much easier."

"Secondly, Perot was solely responsible for making the national debt a major issue in 1992. No one really cared about the debt over the course of the ’80s, and had Perot not run, the eventual Democratic nominee, even if it were Bill Clinton, would probably not have come up with the issue on his own. As smart as Clinton was, without Perot showing that the debt issue had political legs, the Arkansas governor would likely have reverted to traditional Democratic talking points about how the Reagan/Bush tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich, and that taxes had to be raised in order to “invest in our country’s future,” or whatever drivel Democrats were peddling back then. Perot, by making the debt the centerpiece of his campaign, gave Clinton a new plank to his own campaign once Perot dropped out and flamed out — that taxes had to be raised to close the deficit. This argument, having been made by both Perot and Clinton, seemed a lot more sensible to voters than the usual Democratic argument that taxes had to go up so that Democrats could spend more money."

"Finally, Perot siphoned off a lot of Reagan Coalition voters who were displeased with the Bush Administration. Perot’s economic nationalism appealed to Buchananites, who already had one foot outside of the GOP tent given Pat’s run against Bush earlier in the year. Ross’ seeming dismissal of social issues and isolationist stances were attractive to a lot of forgotten New England Republicans, which is why Perot ran so well in states like Maine, which gave Perot second place in the general election. And his focus on the debt made him the favorite of the green eyeshade types who felt that Reaganomics had been irrational in its projections of future growth. Additionally, I suspect there were a significant number of conservative base voters who cast ballots for Perot as a protest against the president’s perceived RINO-ism, even though Perot is pretty much the definition of a RINO, by today’s standards."

"To be sure, the numbers do indeed suggest that Perot garnered his support primarily from Reagan/Bush voters from the 1980s. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992. Bush won Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 54 percent, 55 percent, and 51 percent, respectively, in 1988. Bush/Perot garnered 56 percent, 59 percent, and 54 percent of the vote in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, respectively in 1992. All in all, Bush’s share of the vote from 1988 and the Bush/Perot share of the vote from 1992 seem to overlap significantly, and this holds true in every region of the country and in most of the nation’s largest states. As such, it becomes difficult to argue that Perot hurt Republicans and Democrats equally in 1992. What Perot did was shatter the Reagan/Bush coalition, allowing Bill Clinton to pick up the pieces."

As for Clinton being fiscally conservative, considering he produced a balanced budget, that is not wholly without merit. "Moderate" becomes a bit harder to defend. About the only thing I can think of that works in his favor as a "moderate" is the fact that he supports the death penalty.

Clinton "ran" as a fiscal conservative - thanks to Ross Perot handing him the national debt as an issue with which to take down an otherwise popular George HW Bush.

However, Clinton governed as a tax-and-spend liberal to appease the liberal stalwarts of the Democratic Party - until saddled with a fiscally conservative GOP Congress. Prior to those mid-terms he passed a large tax increase and tried to implement universal healthcare (Hillary Care).

After the GOP won Congress by running on its "Contract with America" promising a balanced budget, Clinton changed his tack and worked with the Gingrich-led Congress (despite the mutual hostility the two had for each other) and went down in history with a balanced budget and an economic boom (mostly tech bubble).

The DJIA puttered along during Clinton's first two years and took off after 1994, the year the GOP won Congress.

Active economy = more tax revenue = balanced budget.

Just curious as to how you know so much about Obama's character.

You don't need to be an expert to figure this one out.

He hasn't completed his first term and already he rates himself the fourth best US president.

He considers himself the most interesting person in the room, unless there are professional basketball players in it. “It’s very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth- or sixth-most interesting person."

From Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas, page 66: Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Oh and, momof4, you'll be relieved to know that Obama doesn't take a day off. Michelle Obama told the crowd at a Democratic fundraiser in June, “He reads every word, every memo, so he is better prepared than the people briefing him,” she said. “This man doesn’t take a day off.”

I post (currently) while I cook. Other people didn't vote me mom to run their house for them. Other people don't pay me for my posting time or any other minute of my time in my life. See the difference? He's taking your money and spending -conservative estimate-4 hours a pop at golf.

I could not tell you the last time I took 4 hours away from my duties, for anything other than sleep. January maybe? I raise 4 kids, run a house, and go to school. Free time will happen someday.

I hated Bush. I do think he was better than Obama, but I was ashamed he called himself Texan. I did not vote for him. I'm sorry if my howls of outrage didn't hit your pretty little ears loud enough.

Amy and Mom, I hope you notice we're talking about different things. Having time for leisurely activities doesn't mean taking a day off. Some people work full days and still watch television when they get home.

I maintain that unless this phenomenal workaholic gets into politics, you're being unrealistic. Amy, you spend enough time talking about parties you go to. It's one thing not to take a day off, which is fine. It's wholly another thing not to take a leisurely activity.

You may not take a day off, Amy. However you do have leisurely activities. You have discussed them on this blog in the past.

Conan, Obama really rated himself the fourth best president in history? When did he do this? I missed that.

Personally, I thought Clinton was better. And Reagan. And Bush the elder. I even think Nixon was better than Obama. I wonder which ones he thinks were better than him. Probably the standard three best: Lincoln, Washington and FDR.

http://news.yahoo.com/60-minutes-edits-obama-claim-fourth-best-president-133404689.html