I am a football coach and follow the sport closely. If a former coach runs a program into the ground and is fired, his replacement no matter how poor the program he takes over is does NOT get 7 years to turn that program around (three years is the absolute tops). So why after he has been in office for SEVEN years do people supporting President Obama still blame President Bush for Obama's difficulties both overseas and with the economy? it makes no logical senswe.
Well, the libs have to blame someone for this mess we're in and it ain't gonna be their idol, Obama........so Bush it is. What has really made my teeth rattle was when I'd hear Obama whining "I inherited a mess!". Well, he applied for the job, claiming he had all the answers and could fix anything, he got the job and now, like a juvenile, he whines about it and blames Bush for his own failures..... Yup! what a man!
Because the same blame will be put on President Obama if a Republican should get elected for two terms.
In science, when describing time dependent events, there is a quantity that is called the time constant. Every process has a time constant, including cultural, social and economic ones. It just happens that those time constants associated with change of economic and foreign policy are a lot longer than those of replacing players on a football team. So, that's the logic you have asked for.
If a football coach is appointed and later fired, it's done because he made a mess of the job. If he same coach is still holding the job after seven years, he must have had his contract renewed because a number of people discussed and agreed to the extension. Obviously to you, football coaches are more important to the community than the presidency.
To me no. To a fair number of people yes obviously. That said, the football coach example is just a convenient one. It also applies to virtually any kind of person hired or elected in order to "turn things around". Business, military, what have you.
