I think we should look at what the purple representative districts are, and try to get smart, rational, competent people to win their republican primaries.

The best check against Obama is a republican majority in the house of representatives that criticizes and checks Obama in such a way that we enjoy positive externalities from it.

Given that he has adopted the same policies as Bush on torture, Gitmo will be around for a while yet, and he is appointing Ratheon lobbyists, for 3 days, I see the same old same old.

> Bush appointed a lot of incompetent people, leading to Katrina (head of FEMA), the Iraq invasion (head of the CIA), and economic collapse (Secretary of the Treasury).

George Tenet at the CIA was a Clinton appointee (1997) whom Bush kept on.

Are you saying that Paulson was incompetent and that his incompetence was a primary cause of our current economic problems? Or are you claiming that about Snow before him?

And isn’t it a bit early to call the current recession an “economic collapse,” especially with actual economies actually collapsing to compare it to? And non-collapsed European economies from five years ago that we’re still not as bad as (as measured by, e.g., unemployment)?

Making precise statements that conform to actual facts is helpful in overcoming bias.

To be a good president, have the finances in order comparable to the difference between Bush the former and the end of Clinton’s presidency. Not necessarily a budget surplus due to how much worse Bush the lesser was.

Obama will be considered a Great Man as long as he doesn’t screw up his public image too badly. It’s a question of perception, not actual accomplishment.

Isn’t Taleb the biggest quack out there? His next book will overturn all of organized knowledge.

Is what you’ve listed enough, for any president to be great? No. And if he were to follow the path you’ve outlined, he would be a terrible president.

Greatness requires, you know, actually doing something great: taking risks and making successful choices. It has nothing to do with being lucky or your skin color. I suspect if Obama were to somehow screw it up, it would set back the progress made by his appointment and reassert racism in the public office, if not in society. Which would truly be worthy of judging it a “terrible” presidency.

How might that happen?

Well, if we recognize Bush’s failures had nothing to do with being unlucky or any such similar nonsense, and they had to do with making terrible policy decisions in the face of terrible situations, and we extrapolate and recognize Obama is walking into situations more terrible than those faced by his predecessor (in this case caused by his predecessor, but that’s neither here nor there), any terrible policy decision he makes is going to have results just that much worse because of the situation it is being made in (compounding errors).

On the other hand, you can’t rise as high as you might if you have to start in a ditch.

Which means:
He needs to be cut slack if things don’t turn out roses.
He can’t be cut slack because we can’t afford things getting worse.
Though socially/politically safe, just riding it out isn’t the mark of greatness.

Which means:
I don’t envy his position.

(Also: Kan haz less liburtearion, plz? Kthnx.)