Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It may not be absurd, but it's a lot more than the typical golfer plays who has to work full time and take care of his family.  It's about twice as much as I ever had time for until I retired, and I consider myself an avid golfer.  An argument could be made that Obama's (or any president's) first duty is to the country, not to his golf swing.  I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity for a bit of down time, but to spend 50% more time on the golf course than the average golfing citizen does nothing for his image.

How's that for skating around the obvious political aspects of the question?

Sorry, but 15 rounds of golf is not the definition of an "avid" golfer. Not even close. You putter around (pun intended) with golf, at best.

Let's see.  I've played for more than 40 years.  I've played Men's club tournaments in the same club since 1989.  I've been a USGA member since 1987.  I've taken 3 USGA/PGA Rules Workshops on my own dime.  I've worked as an on course rules official for the Colorado Golf Association.  And since I retired (worked for more than 30 years anywhere from 50 to 70 hour weeks), I've played about 100 18 hole rounds each year while working as a starter at my home course.  And Colorado has winter which can often shut down golf for up to 3 months.

Any other smart comments.?

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quantity of rounds has little or nothing to do with a person's aviddity (made that up ), or avidness towards golf.  I have never - until this year - played more than 15 rounds of golf in one year and I have always considered myself an avid golfer.  (This year I at about 20 or so ... along with practicing at the range an average of twice a week)

Being into golf enough to join this website and spend a lot of time talking about a sport you are obsessed with (no matter how often you get to actually play it)is probably a better test of whether or not you are avid about golf.

But technically you are right ... 15 rounds IS NOT the definition of avid golfer, not even close.  What is close:

Enthusiastic, ardent, keen, devoted, dedicated, zealous, fanatic, at least 25 rounds of golf a year, extremely desirous, eager, hungry, greedy, covetous, insatiable.

PS ... Most of those definitions are from dictionary.com but one of them is made up.  Bet you can't guess which one.

You can't be an avid golfer if you play a little more than once a month. And you certainly won't get any better, so what is the point other than recreation? One of the obsessions of avid golfers is constant improvement. If you go out once a month and knock it around you are playing golf, but you are not a golfer. And certainly not an "avid" one.

Talk about stuck up.  Some people have different priorities out of necessity, but that doesn't make them any less passionate about the game.  And improvement is not necessarily an option for all.  I made it to a 9.6 index, never lower, and at this point I couldn't care less.  I still shoot the occasional round under 80, and more important, I have fun every time I play.  It's how one approaches playing golf, not how well he plays that shows my love for it.

Go to the course with the intention of having fun, being respectful of the course and your fellow players, and playing by the rules as best you know them.  Those are more important measures than handicap index.

[JerryTimes]

That's the thing - the GOP doesn't want him to fix anything and won't allow him to do so. What to do but play a few holes of golf...

he played a bunch of golf the first two years he was in office and the GOP couldn't stop him from doing anything......even golf! He's only got a few months left so its ok. :-D

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by JerryTimes

he played a bunch of golf the first two years he was in office and the GOP couldn't stop him from doing anything......even golf! He's only got a few months left so its ok.

Your state is going to Obama, like mine is going to Romney.

We don't count because of the Electoral College.

But see, that's the thing - the GOP could and did stop him. Y'all living in that right wing echo chamber don't get it - the GOP abused the filibuster rules so Obama needed 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. He got some GOP votes for a few items, but the GOP has stagnated any hope of economic recovery by not working with the President. Remember the grand bargain? $4T reduction of the deficit over 10 years? The Tea Party threw that one down the tubes along with our downgraded debt. And yep, both the leadership of Obama and Boehner sucked. Obama waited too long.

But the deal was there. Business would have been given some certainty and our recovery would be quicker - but in the finale, the GOP torpedoed a deal.

So don't blame Obama - fully. The GOP is part of this slow recovery - a big part.

So quit whining, quit pointing fingers - ask your representatives to work with the other side and get a deal done. We're all tired of the partisan crap - I hope we all are tired of it. Work to make it work!

[x129]

The cutting medicare was one thing both parties agree in. It isn't cutting care it is cutting waste. Medicare patients are screwed anyway. The doctors don't  get paid enough to see them so if they can fill their slate with other patients they do.

Your study is picking and choosing data points. If there are 25 countries with "socialized health care" you can pick the worst in each category to make yourself look good. For example look up the corectal mortality rate of the US versus France or Japan and then think why they compared the US to the British.   We do lead the world in breast cancer. Now if that is because of or in spite of the number of mammograms done is debateable.  Wait times also very with some being better and some worse. In the US it is quicker (in general it is taking me 6 months to see a dermatologist) but seeing a primary care is slower on average.

Fact 5 proves that socialized health care is better. Seniors in the US (who happen to have socialized health care) are 2x as happy. The young guys without it are just 20%.  Get them Obamacare and they will be 2x as happy as their canadian peers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

The only one I have a link to right now is this one: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

The Obamacare bill cuts Medicare spending by $500 billion over the next ten years. I don't find it that hard to believe that that will result in difficulty for Medicare patients.

As I said I can't comment on your situation but I can comment on national ones. Health care premiums basically doubled under bush. They are up ~40% under Obama. If he gets 8 years they will double. If Mitt is elected, the health care costs will still hit that doubling. With an aging population (compare the insurance costs of a 30 year old to a 60 year old sometime) that is in poor health (look at the diabetes rates in people under 40 and think where they will be in another 20 years) it is a pretty safe bet.

Quote:

I'm in NY State, so it is possible that the increases are state related but the rates have gone up as I stated.  Additionally providers like Anthem (BC/BS) made their plans so unattractive that our insurance broker believes they are looking to exit the small business market in NY.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Let's see.  I've played for more than 40 years.  I've played Men's club tournaments in the same club since 1989.  I've been a USGA member since 1987.  I've taken 3 USGA/PGA Rules Workshops on my own dime.  I've worked as an on course rules official for the Colorado Golf Association.  And since I retired (worked for more than 30 years anywhere from 50 to 70 hour weeks), I've played about 100 18 hole rounds each year while working as a starter at my home course.  And Colorado has winter which can often shut down golf for up to 3 months.

Any other smart comments.?

Talk about stuck up.  Some people have different priorities out of necessity, but that doesn't make them any less passionate about the game.  And improvement is not necessarily an option for all.  I made it to a 9.6 index, never lower, and at this point I couldn't care less.  I still shoot the occasional round under 80, and more important, I have fun every time I play.  It's how one approaches playing golf, not how well he plays that shows my love for it.

Go to the course with the intention of having fun, being respectful of the course and your fellow players, and playing by the rules as best you know them.  Those are more important measures than handicap index.

Sorry, but playing 15 rounds a year is not "avid" golf. It sounds like you BECAME one, and more power to you. But I find it kind of convoluted that you find time for multiple workshops and being a rules official, but you don't find time to actually, you know, PLAY. Sorry, ain't buying it. "Avid" golfers don't play 15 times in a year, no matter how long the season. I play in a shortened season and I haven't played less than 55 rounds in 30 years. You just used this as an excuse to take a shot at Obama because he uses golf to unwind. Bush used to clear brush in Crawford, TX. To each his own.

Good for you that you now find the time to play. Enjoy.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Let's see.  I've played for more than 40 years.  I've played Men's club tournaments in the same club since 1989.  I've been a USGA member since 1987.  I've taken 3 USGA/PGA Rules Workshops on my own dime.  I've worked as an on course rules official for the Colorado Golf Association.  And since I retired (worked for more than 30 years anywhere from 50 to 70 hour weeks), I've played about 100 18 hole rounds each year while working as a starter at my home course.  And Colorado has winter which can often shut down golf for up to 3 months.

Any other smart comments.?

Talk about stuck up.  Some people have different priorities out of necessity, but that doesn't make them any less passionate about the game.  And improvement is not necessarily an option for all.  I made it to a 9.6 index, never lower, and at this point I couldn't care less.  I still shoot the occasional round under 80, and more important, I have fun every time I play.  It's how one approaches playing golf, not how well he plays that shows my love for it.

Go to the course with the intention of having fun, being respectful of the course and your fellow players, and playing by the rules as best you know them.  Those are more important measures than handicap index.

Sorry, but playing 15 rounds a year is not "avid" golf. It sounds like you BECAME one, and more power to you. But I find it kind of convoluted that you find time for multiple workshops and being a rules official, but you don't find time to actually, you know, PLAY. Sorry, ain't buying it. "Avid" golfers don't play 15 times in a year, no matter how long the season. I play in a shortened season and I haven't played less than 55 rounds in 30 years. You just used this as an excuse to take a shot at Obama because he uses golf to unwind. Bush used to clear brush in Crawford, TX. To each his own.

Good for you that you now find the time to play. Enjoy.

So basically, the fact that I have chosen to use some of my time to give something back to the game while you do nothing but play, to the apparent exclusion of family and friends, makes you a more dedicated golfer than I am.   Good grief.

And believe me, I had to tie myself to my chair to stay out of the political side of this discussion.  There is no possible benefit to be gained from the same tired rhetoric from both sides of the coin.   The US political system has become mired in it's own bottomless bog, and nobody is going to find a way out of it until spending is cut off and we find a way out of the debt spiral.  The endless spending on people who won't take responsibility for themselves has to stop.  The bailing out of mismanaged companies has to stop.  Paying farmers to not grow crops while at the same time blaming the cost of food on this or that shortage.  Throwing money and lives down the sewer in military conflicts which can't be won has to stop.  We can't save the world.  We can't even manage our own problems.  The Soviet Union couldn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan, and that was their own backyard.  Let the Afghanis and Libyans and whoever else fight their own battles, or throw our whole strength at them and really show what it means to piss off the US.  All this *****footing around, letting wars be run by politicians is going to get us the same crap we got handed to us in Viet Nam.  Fight it like a war or get the hell out... and better yet, stay out in the first place.

Everybody wants a painless solution to our woes.  Hate to say it, but there ain't no such thing.  We will never dig out of our hole without some hard times and hard choices, but there isn't a politician in Washington with the guts to make such a proposal.  It would be political death, and there is no longer any such thing as an idealistic politician - that's pretty much an oxymoron.  Even if an idealist was to get elected to national office, he is immediately taught the realities of survival in Washington, and like the Borg, he will be assimilated.  Even if that wasn't so, one or two idealists with a good plan couldn't accomplish anything, even if they stuck to their guns.  The days when a good orator with a sound plan could be heard with favor are long gone, if indeed they ever existed.

I don't see any solution, but I can sure see that Washington doesn't have one either.  And worse they don't even seem to be really looking for one.  An actual solution would be bound to hurt someone, would certainly cost votes, and that's never going to popular there.  My rant is now over.  I guess I'll just go back to being a non-avid golfer, as characterized by Phan52, the expert.

[Mr. Desmond]

I f Romney is elected, let's hope he learns the importance of national security:

And William Kristol, for those who don't know, is a conservative, to say the least...

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 12:24 PM Share

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was criticized Tuesday for giving a national security speech light on details, and today a top Republican pundit called on him to stop downplaying the importance of national security on the stump.

Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called out Romney today for what he sees as the candidate's unhelpful statements on national security priorities. Kristol references a Wall Street Journal article in which Romney is said to quote former Secretary of State James Baker saying that President Ronald Reagan decided not to have any national security meetings in his first 100 days as president, after Baker convened one meeting related to Latin America.

"And after the meeting, President Reagan called me in and said, ‘I want no more national-security meetings over the next 100 days-all of our time has to be focused on getting our economy going,'" Romney recalled Baker saying, according to the Journal.

Kristol actually reviewed the archives of Reagan's meetings from the Reagan Foundation records and said the anecdote was either false or that Reagan's comments were never meant to be taken literally.

"In fact, I'll buy Jim Baker a very good dinner next time he's in Washington if he or anyone else can find a 100-day stretch (or a 10-day stretch) of the Reagan presidency in which President Reagan was involved in no national security meetings," Kristol wrote. "To say nothing of the fact that he ran for the presidency highlighting national security issues, and was a historic president in large part because of his national security accomplishments.

"So, reminder to Mitt Romney: With respect to the presidency, national security isn't a bug; it's a feature," Kristol said.

Romney's use of the anecdote also upset former Bush advisor Marc Thiessen , who wrote on the website of the American Enterprise Institute that Romney's use of the anecdote shows a misunderstanding of the presidency and the world the next president will inherit.

"But the fact that Romney thinks it would be desirable to ignore the world for his first 100 days is troubling," Thiessen wrote. "Yes, the American people are focused on the economy -- and understandably so. But Romney isn't running for Treasury secretary -- he is running for commander in chief. And those responsibilities begin on Day 1 of his presidency."

[David in FL]

I f Romney is elected, let's hope he learns the importance of national security:

Heck, maybe he'll even learn that we have ships that you can land an airplane on.... . . . . . Every time I see snarky, nonsensical comments like these, I smile. It just reinforces that all the Left has to fall back on is silliness and attacks on Romney, because they know that they cannot run on their record over the last 4 years. BTW......I'm sure that Christopher Stevens' family might question the current administration's commitment to national security. :-(

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

So basically, the fact that I have chosen to use some of my time to give something back to the game while you do nothing but play, to the apparent exclusion of family and friends, makes you a more dedicated golfer than I am.   Good grief.

Yeah, you know me real well.

I've worked as a course rater for the GAP for ten years. I have played for my club in the GAP Team Matches (the largest organized golf tournament in the world) for over 20 years. I have been handicap chairman at my club for the last 15 years (going to multiple handicap workshops over the years) and served as golf chairman for 6. I am a lifetime member of the J Wood Platt Caddie Scholarship Fund. I ran a volunteer group for the ATT National that was played at Aronimink in 2010 and 2011, and I am heading up a marshall group for the US Open at Merion in 2013. Surprisingly, amid all that, I find the time to pursue my love of the game by actually playing some golf.

My wife plays, my kids play and I play with them as much as I can. I help grow the game, so get off your high horse and play some golf. As far as your very legitimate concerns about Washington are concerned, they have nothing to do with the fact that the POTUS uses the opportunity to play golf to unwind from all the pressure.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Heck, maybe he'll even learn that we have ships that you can land an airplane on....

.

.

.

.

.

Every time I see snarky, nonsensical comments like these, I smile. It just reinforces that all the Left has to fall back on is silliness and attacks on Romney, because they know that they cannot run on their record over the last 4 years.

BTW......I'm sure that Christopher Stevens' family might question the current administration's commitment to national security.

What snarky comments?

The article commented on right wingers commenting on Mitt Romney wanting to avoid national security issues for his first 100 days and focus on the economy. Good grief, Man. Which side of the right do you agree?

The point the right is making is that Mitt is naive, and that was only 3 months ago.

As to Benghazi, seriously? It was an outpost and FAR from Tripoli. I guess the Ambassador should also be accountable for putting himself in a place on Sept 11 where there was little security. To me, if I'm an Ambassador on Sept 11 - I'm taking a trip and leaving Libya for a few days. Paris or London sound like a better idea. I don't know what was on Steven's mind but it wasn't common sense. And I'm the same age as he - I think Stevens appears a bit naive. But no one wants to make a dead man accountable.

You know who is making Stevens accountable? I bet his family is asking why would anyone go to a remote outpost on 9/11?

For all the crying we hear from the right about accountability, you know where it starts? With the individual.

And did the Democrats play politics with 9/11? On whose watch did that occur? Who vacationed while Al Queda chatter was stating something big is about to happen?

Typically, we close ranks. But this is Obama. All bets are off - apparently. Only hours after the attack, Romney is playing politics with deaths. Were mistakes made? You bet - by a lot of people. Investigate it and place responsibility.

Enough of this - you won't even make your own candidate accountable for his statements. What? Hypocrites? You want to hold the so-called left and Obama accountable, but OMG, holding your own side accountable? Heaven forbid! Such hypocrisy. The right has no moral high ground. The fact that they have lied, cajoled, beaten, and spun the last election for four years has no consequences for them. The fact their candidate can shape shift at the last second, be wrong about every issue on foreign policy that he has previously uttered before Monday night, has no consequences. Mitt's "I'm having what he's having" performance has no consequence.

No one is accountable as long as they are on your side.

That is what is wrong with this country.

Sides.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Every time I see snarky, nonsensical comments like these, I smile. It just reinforces that all the Left has to fall back on is silliness and attacks on Romney, because they know that they cannot run on their record over the last 4 years.

BTW......I'm sure that Christopher Stevens' family might question the current administration's commitment to national security.

I don't normally get involved in these discussions about candidates, but...

1. And Romney's campaign is exactly what?

--What's his plan to balance the budget?  Lower everyone's taxes and declare 30% of the federal budget (DoD) off limits from cuts?

--What's his plan for Afghanistan?  Wait and see how things look in 2014, and then weigh options?

--What's his plan for entitlement reform?  Eliminate out of control spending?  What exactly does that mean?  What's he going to cut?

--What's his plan for job creation?  He says that government doesn't create jobs, but we should trust him that when he gets to government, he'll create jobs?  (BTW I agree in concept that eliminating/reducing taxes on corporations can, in theory, create jobs.  But how does that impact the plan to balance the budget?)

If you look through the rhetoric of Romney's campaign, the only substance appears to be "Obama sucks."

2. One dead foreign service officer is not evidence of a lack of commitment to foreign policy.  The only failure which might have prevented that tragedy was the lack of a Marine detachment stationed at the Embassy.  I really doubt that President Obama personally selected which Embassies would get a Marine garrison and which ones wouldn't.  That would be up to the Commandant, possibly the COCOM commander, and the DoS, but I'd guess that the decision was primarily military.  And you'd have a hard time arguing that the Commandant of the Marine Corps is an Obama lackey.

People working in foreign service, particularly in the Middle East, get killed.  Plain and simple.  We lost a US Ambassador in Iraq under Bush's watch in the freaking Green Zone.  There was an entire battalion of Marines in that Embassy, not to mention a fifth of the US fighting force patrolling Baghdad.

And, to get back on topic.  None of these issues are affected by 2 rounds of golf per month.

[newtogolf]

Romney went into the 3rd debate with an agenda, which was to not get backed into a corner that would cost him votes.  I personally don't like such strategies as IMO the prevent defense prevents teams from winning.  Romney has much to learn, as did Obama (he had even less experience than Romney when he entered the white house).

We won't see the real Romney until / if he wins and is in office just as we didn't see Obama's real agenda until he won four years ago.

[x129]

First he has to learn why airplane windows don't open Personally I think carriers are like battleships in 1944. They are not useless by any means but their best days are behind them. It is a missile/drone world int 20 years.

Notice how Mitt doesn't want to run on his record either? Being the 47th state in job creation in 2002-2006 doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he is the man to get our economy going.  It is hard to run on RomneyCare.  Sucking 1.5 billion out of the feds to pay for his  olympic's isn't exactly a we built this moment either. And does he really want to remind people of his work at Bain?  Corporate raiders have never been very popular.

Personally i think I would be happy with a Mitt presidency and a democratic congress or a Obama presidency with either congress.  Both would lead to a middle of the road approach.  Getting Mitt with a republican congress seems like it will lead to an economic disaster like last time but maybe they have learned restraint. I wouldn't hold my breath though

Originally Posted by David in FL

Heck, maybe he'll even learn that we have ships that you can land an airplane on....

.

.

.

.

.

Every time I see snarky, nonsensical comments like these, I smile. It just reinforces that all the Left has to fall back on is silliness and attacks on Romney, because they know that they cannot run on their record over the last 4 years.

BTW......I'm sure that Christopher Stevens' family might question the current administration's commitment to national security.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Romney went into the 3rd debate with an agenda, which was to not get backed into a corner that would cost him votes.  I personally don't like such strategies as IMO the prevent defense prevents teams from winning.  Romney has much to learn, as did Obama (he had even less experience than Romney when he entered the white house).

We won't see the real Romney until / if he wins and is in office just as we didn't see Obama's real agenda until he won four years ago.

I beg to differ:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Blueprint_Obama.htm

You under-estimate what Romney has done.

So you're saying this last second shape shifting and "I'll have what he's having" by Romney has no effect? Typically, a candidate will shift during late Spring and Summer to move towards the center if he has gone far left or right to win a nomination. In Romney's case, he waited until October to move to the middle. Pundits say if he wins it will change everything in future campaigns - the candidates will all shape shift in October - no one will know what they're getting.

At least we had an idea with Obama and he has more or less hoed the line. Romney has the issues on his website - I'm assuming that's where he stands. And it's filled with an etch a sketch outline - generalities. And his foreign policy team is 70% neo-cons - that should tell you something. This is the same group that fired the 500,000 man Iraqi Army when they were armed. Ah, yes, let's have more Keystone Cop-like strategy. Another helping of Bush, please .

At least Obama was more detailed.

And he doesn't take "Billigans" from all reports. He plays by the rules.

[saevel25]

He's only president for 4 years, unless its for public relations like playing golf with another head of state, don't play golf. Do your job for 4 years. After 4 years you can play as much golf as you want.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by saevel25

He's only president for 4 years, unless its for public relations like playing golf with another head of state, don't play golf. Do your job for 4 years. After 4 years you can play as much golf as you want.

So let me get this straight, you're trying to redistribute his golf?

[hendog]

Originally Posted by saevel25

He's only president for 4 years, unless its for public relations like playing golf with another head of state, don't play golf. Do your job for 4 years. After 4 years you can play as much golf as you want.

I agree. I love golf and hate to criticize someone for playing but the POTUS is not your everyday job. Certainly there is room for vacations and some relaxation but if nothing else it is a matter of perception. Bush played but after 9/11 he decided that it was not right for him to be out there playing golf while the nation was "under attack" and he didn't play again to my knowledge his entire term. I don't see anything wrong with trying to get out once a month. That's 48 rounds for 1 term. Assuming some months you can' find the time but you play a couple on a vacation then I think this is reasonable. Especially considering some of them will be with foreign dignitaries etc. at least I would hope. With unemployment above 8 (truly it still is) I just think its a big middle finger to the country.

He'll have plenty of time next year and the rest of his life :)

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Jason M Henley

I agree. I love golf and hate to criticize someone for playing but the POTUS is not your everyday job. Certainly there is room for vacations and some relaxation but if nothing else it is a matter of perception. Bush played but after 9/11 he decided that it was not right for him to be out there playing golf while the nation was "under attack" and he didn't play again to my knowledge his entire term. I don't see anything wrong with trying to get out once a month. That's 48 rounds for 1 term. Assuming some months you can' find the time but you play a couple on a vacation then I think this is reasonable. Especially considering some of them will be with foreign dignitaries etc. at least I would hope. With unemployment above 8 (truly it still is) I just think its a big middle finger to the country.

He'll have plenty of time next year and the rest of his life :)

Woodrow Wilson played 1200 rounds of golf during his Presidency

Dwight Eisenhower played 800 rounds.

I think wars were involved in both Presidencies.

Bush played after 9/11 - but after a bombing in Iraq in August 2003 where a UN Official was killed, he stopped playing. So Bush played for almost 2 years after 9/11.

Such unfeeling, insensitive individuals! What a middle finger! (sarcasm)

So Bush gave the country a middle finger, too, and he had, what 150k Americans in Iraq and 68k in Afghanistan. We now have no American Troops in Iraq and 68k  in Afghanistan. I stated 68k under Bush because that is what is there now after the surge has been drawn down.

So, maybe you're being harsh on Obama.

From an interview:

"It's the only time that for six hours, I'm outside," said the president in a CBS News interview with Harry Smith. He said its one of the few times as president "where you almost feel normal" in the sense that he feels outside the security bubble that envelopes him at all times.

"It feels as if...you're out of the container," he said.

But never is the game of golf more controversial than when it's played by an American president. It infuriates critics who demand to know why he's not working on the nation's problems. It makes his supporters aggressively defensive about his right to have a few hours of recreation.