Is the president underexposed? ["Editor's Note"] While an interesting question, given Mr. Obama's "overexposure" in the first half of his term, it's the wrong one. "Is the president leading?" is a better question to ask of the American electorate. Determined to be the anti-Bush in foreign affairs, the president seems uncertain in the bully pulpit. People recognize that Tunisians, Egyptians, and Libyans, while similarly stunted by coercive government, face different obstacles to free expression. What's missing from the White House is clear, consistent, predictable affirmation of principle, in word and deed. Absent conviction, I suppose, the lower one's profile, the better.
LOU CARTIER Greeley, Colo.
Your question alone is inane. Just try for 24 hours to go without seeing Obama on TV, hearing him on radio, or on the Internet. The man is simply a talking head with no substance. His leadership "skills" thus far are to wade in where he should not (state issues) and pontificate, or to have a beer and try to make nice. He is a joke.
MICHAEL SHADE Broomfield, Colo.
My friends and I could not have been more turned off by Obama's nonstop appearances his first days. What the president has done recently is far better (though I disagree with his policies). Where Obama has really gone wrong is in not doing enough evening Oval Office chats on important issues, especially today with the deficit. He needs to explain what is at stake. Of course I understand, politically, why he is being advised not to do so . . . which is also why Obama will never be thought of as a great president.
BRIAN TRUMBORE Summit, N.J.
Closing Time for Unions?
Unions had their place in history ["Editor's Note"]. Now they have gotten out of control. And public employee unions need to go away or be downsized to nearly nothing. They definitely should not have the right to strike or spend public money to do their bidding for more money or to support candidates. Other states are starting the move in this direction. The Wisconsin governor should stand his ground.
MIKE FASSLER Eagle River, Alaska
Government unions do not deal with the "owners," which are the taxpayers. They deal with politicians. If the politicians are Democrats depending on unions for votes and campaign funds, they will get what they demand, and taxpayers are left out in the cold. To correct this outlandish condition, any agreement with government unions should be approved by the taxpayers or by their honest representatives, who should have veto power. Until this is done, Democrats will continue our march to socialist fiscal insanity.
FRANK SOLIS West Deptford, N.J.
What is really unconscionable is the waste incurred in both money and productivity in the preparation for the "possible" government shutdown over the budget, and worse if it actually happens ["Preparing for the Worst"]. I wish there was a way to personally bill the politicians!
VICTOR A. SMITH Punta Gorda, Fla.