Losing the Luster (Obama)? [/vent]

[cannon_fodder]

I have avoided bashing Obama to give him a chance.  I don't think many people gave Bush a chance at all and it did not serve us well.   It is not my intent to bash Obama here, but I'm starting to get concerned.  For full disclosure, I voted for Obama so I'm somewhat invested.

I realize he is just starting out.  I know that.  I'm trying not to phrase this as a b!tch fest, but I'm getting concerned.

1) First, I have to call his judgment into question as many (most?) or his top level advisers turned out to have fatal flaws.  Most notably an inability or unwillingness to comply with Federal Tax laws.  Still others that seemed qualified for the position or bridged an ideological divide passed up the invite or quit.  I'm pleasantly surprised by the performance of Clinton as Secretary of State, but otherwise things are not running smoothly.  A president delegates 90% of his duties so I'm concerned.

Some posts STILL aren't filled.  The UK complained that they can not get calls returned from several departments (including treasury!).   Really? 

2) Most notable is the economic policy seems to have actually gotten worse.  Few would argue that Bush has a great plan to deal with it and largely left an open to door to allow Obama to institute his plans.  The policy STILL isn't clear.  All we are clear on is that up to the national GDP will be allocated to the problem.  We're not sure where the money will go, to what industries, for what purpose, on what terms, or . . . well anything.  We don't know who has the money currently or on what terms.  Just throwing money out the door.

He knew he was inheriting a serious economic problem.  As the campaign went on the economy gained in prominence.  That he would enter office without a real plan seems very odd:  banks were failing, the auto industry bailout was already a question, jobs were being lost.   Were none of his advisers coming up with ideas to deal with these things?

In the interest of fairness, he has been an advocate against protectionism and in favor of free trade.  So on a basic level I think he is aiming for the right tactic.  Just question the effects and transparency involved. 

If it is a matter of taking time to get it right, I'm fine with it.  But then it must be right.  There are many different versions of what is right and I'm not too picky (I'll hate them all in some way):  BUT, they all MUST involved transparency. 

Dolling out trillions of dollars is ripe for unprecedented corruption and waste.

3) Another major tenant of Obamaism is to increase the standing of the USA on a global stage.  I agree in large part with this goal.  If the US has a reputation as a liar and a cheat or just not giving a damn about what others have to say - it is harder for us to have our voice heard or believed.   Rabid anti Americanism is a hard foreign policy to overcome AND hinders US economics (trade, foreign investment, tourism).  I want America to be respected AND liked.

BUT WHY HASN'T ANYONE TAUGHT BASIC DECORUM TO THIS ADMINISTRATION?

- Don't buy the Prime Minster a DVD set (he can't play)
- Don't give gifts from the gift shop
- Ipods should not be given to heads of state
- DON'T BOW TO FOREIGN KINGS.
- Britain and England are different things

I'll let the arm around the queen slide.  I'd rather insult a foreign monarch with a friendly American colloquium than bow to one.  Seriously, doesn't the White House have people that take care of stuff like that?

4) Stop pretending your former Senate seat wasn't being sold.  You are the head of State, your Senate seat was being freaking sold.  Just a hint of outrage on this subject would be fantastic.  I understand innocent until proven guilty, qualify it all you want with "if proven guilty" but this man tainted your election and the United States government.

5) I like good oration.  Not only does it provide a clear message but it engages the audience.  That was a huge Obama draw - and it's largely gone.

Reliance on teleprompters was good during the campaign when you had plenty of time to get each speech ready and can be useful aids now.  But reading every speech is tiresome and ineffective.  You cannot pause for random applause, you must pause when breaks are written it. 

Not a huge deal, but it isn't helping.  The image of the US President can help sell the message.  We all know Bush didn't do us any favors in that regard and I really thought Obama would deliver home run after home run.  I've been disappointed.

6) Yay, you're a rock star.  If was well received by everyone across Europe.  Polite receptions and the ability to speak in the most prominent rolls.   But we got none of the things we asked for:

- No increased international stimulus
- No sanctions against N Korea
- No troops for Afghanistan
- No action against Irans nuclear program

Either we didn't get anything that we wanted, or the administration is not selling the "victories" well.

7) Mexican Drug War - has the USA done anything in response to this escalation the last few months?


THE GOOD:

Dedication to free trade / antiprotectionist

9) Transferring responsibility in Iraq more to Iraqis

10) Ignoring gay marriage (why, in the hell, does the Federal Government care about two guys getting married?)

11) Deescalating the war on marijuana.  What a waste of resources that is.

12) More press access/ public addresses

- - -

Had to vent.  Read a detailed article on bowing to the King of Saud and was very disappointed.  I'm not anti-Obama and certainly don't want him to fail and (again) I realize we are early on.  But concerns are already starting to rise.

[Cats Cats Cats]

1)  That was pretty stupid.  But I wonder how many people you can nominate that somebody couldn't dig something up on.  At the very least they could have found somebody that did something that didn't involve taxes.  However, at least one of those I could definitely see if you did your own taxes missing.

2)  Unfortunately Bush and Congress started us down this path with the bailouts.  He can request this and that but it is up to Congress to get it done and keep transparency on some of this.

3)  The White House said that the Queen requested the IPOD.  This is the Guido effect of pointless complaining.
I don't know why he would bow to somebody.  I know there is a picture out of Bush "bowing" but I think it was to receive a medal.

6)  I wouldn't bet on everybody forgiving us for tanking the world economy and the last 8 years in 4 months.  I do however think that given another year or so we will get more help.

[RecycleMichael]

I never trusted him.

He named his daughters "Sasha" (a russian name) and "Malia" (Hawaiian for peaceful)

He is a commie peacenik. Nuff said.

[FOTD]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey

There will be no doubt that he will continue to be effective.....

Why do you hate America?

Get your commemorative dinner plate!

10 weeks?....this stress is not good for you.

[Gaspar]

I think he just dropped a contact lens.



I guess there's a first for everything.

[guido911]

No Gas, he was LEANING (not bowing) to shake the hand of a shorter person.   

[Gaspar]

No Gas, he was LEANING (not bowing) to shake the hand of a shorter person.   

Is that short person in the king's pocket?

I don't think it was an act of prostration, I think he wanted the king to kiss his forehead, you know for good luck or something.

Perhaps he was admiring a really nice pare of Brunos Maglis?

"Um, fabulous shoes your uh. . . majesty"

It was cute.

[Hawkins]

The President of the United States does receive instruction on how to conduct himself as the dominant figure in any public setting.

This bow, then, had to have been intentional. It was completely out of the ordinary for a U.S. President to behave.

My theory is that we used this trip for Obama to "suck up" to the Saudis and the Turks because Israel is about to lay the smack down on Iran.

I might be wrong, but I hope that is what this was all about. We don't want to start a war in the middle-east, but something is likely to happen soon with Iran. So Biden says to Israel, "an attack would be ill-advised," and Obama bows to the Saudis and says, "We are not at war with Islam."

Then Israel hits Iran's nuclear facility shortly after passover next week, and we throw our hands up in the air and say, "We're sorry Iran, we had no idea they were going to do this." 

[Gaspar]

The President of the United States does receive instruction on how to conduct himself as the dominant figure in any public setting.

This bow, then, had to have been intentional. It was completely out of the ordinary for a U.S. President to behave.

My theory is that we used this trip for Obama to "suck up" to the Saudis and the Turks because Israel is about to lay the smack down on Iran.

I might be wrong, but I hope that is what this was all about. We don't want to start a war in the middle-east, but something is likely to happen soon with Iran. So Biden says to Israel, "an attack would be ill-advised," and Obama bows to the Saudis and says, "We are not at war with Islam."

Then Israel hits Iran's nuclear facility shortly after passover next week, and we throw our hands up in the air and say, "We're sorry Iran, we had no idea they were going to do this." 

Very well put.  +1 Karma

[we vs us]

CF: 

You're focusing a lot on cosmetic problems, I'd say.  Our country -- and dare I say the world -- seems to have a lot of tolerance for international gaffes and/or blunders at this point.  The last administration proved that pretty well.  Obama's "rock star" status can paper over a lot of smallish missed cues, and as much as we might be suspicious of personal charisma as indicative of leadership ability (which, IMO, is always at the root of our hostility towards movie stars who speak out politically), his main message was successful.  In so many large and small ways he made sure that the "with us or against us" diplomacy of the Bush Administration is a thing of the past, and I'd say it bore fruit (for instance:  an excellent start with Russia's Medvedev, a gushing press conference with Gordon Brown -- in which the snubs of the past were completely forgotten; he's also made overtures to Iran and Syria, and has already begun significantly changing our Cuba policy). 

In other words, he's getting there.  Focusing on small and ultimately forgettable gaffes takes away from the larger things he'll be remembered for. 

The teleprompter thing. . . sheesh, that's so last week it isn't even funny.  And again, it's more distraction than substantive.

The tax issues are disturbing but seem to be endemic to both parties.  I'm more concerned with how close his economic advisers are to the companies and interest groups that caused our meltdown.  Geithner's connection to Goldman Sachs (along with Paulson, I might add); Summers connection to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill which in effect repealed Glass-Steagall; Robert Rubin and Citigroup, and Rubin's outspoken opposition to regulation of derivatives, etc.  They're simply too beholden to the financial industry in my view and that hobbles policy in a big way. 

Some of Obama's failures -- to me -- include his continuing support of FISA and his unwillingness to hold our security apparatus accountable for torture (another report about which the ICRC just released).  I'm a bigger stimulus kinda guy, and I think he's way undershot what the economy needs, and I also think his initial focus on bipartisanship to get it done was really a major blunder.  Thankfully he learned pretty quickly that he can't count on the GOP rump for anything whatsoever and has been making his way around them when he can. 

He ain't perfect by any means (he was never going to be, of course), but 11 weeks in and he's off to an impressive start.

[cannon_fodder]

Wevus, I realize I am over reacting.  But the gaffs I mentioned are very public ones.  It is the face of the administration we are able to see.  IF that is messed up it calls into doubt the rest of whatever is going on.

Just concerned and venting, I'm not writing him off.

[YoungTulsan]

The bowing, the teleprompter, the dvds, the rock star stuff, those are just nitpicky opposition talking points.  Red herrings if you will.  They don't matter.  Bringing them up only shows an "I don't like him so I'm going to harp on everything I can" angle.

That being said, disagreeing with policy is a legitimate issue to be brought up.

A couple of points from CF's rant:

Point one, the economic policy

We're not sure where the money will go, to what industries, for what purpose, on what terms, or . . . well anything.  We don't know who has the money currently or on what terms.  Just throwing money out the door.

My problem with Obama's policy with the bailouts is that there does seem to be some purpose.  No one wants to say where the money is going, under the guise of "it could crash the markets if we told you" - Convenient excuse.  Anyway, what is the purpose of all the bailouts?  That purpose seems to be gaining government control over business and industry by using bailout funds.  Some cry about nationalization, I'm not sure full nationalization is the goal or if they would take it that far, BUT, what appears to be happening right now is that they are doling out all kinds of bailout money with strings attached.  Basically, the government is buying controlling interest in companies.  What makes this unfair is that if you or I wanted to buy shares in a company, we would have to use real money, money we actually have.  The government has a never ending source of funds.  They can borrow, or call the Fed and have more money created.  That is an advantage that no one else has.  So when the government gets in the business of hostile takeovers, there is no one who can stop them.

If you're going to buy controlling stakes in business, do it with capital, not with money out of thin air.  But the real point should be that this is a power grab, based on the current economic crisis making the situation thus that they can get away with doing it.  The government shouldn't be using its unlimited funds to buy control in companies.

Looking at overall economic policy, the bailouts, and the stimulus bill, it just seems the only solution offered is more government.  I see no new freedom for productivity to flourish being discussed.  If you recall that Daniel Hannan rant against Gordon Brown a week or two ago, my favorite point he made about the fallacy in most of the "economic recovery plans" of big government, is that they are increasing the unproductive (government) sector while at the same time putting more and more burden on the productive sector (business, industry).  Only productivity can ultimately pull us out of recession, we can't keep finding ways to paper over a deficit in production forever. Hopefully something out of this bailout frenzy will eventually spark productivity somewhere, and there appear to be some people who have faith that this is the actual intent.  Could someone please try to sell me on this idea?

Point two, free trade

You mentioned free trade.  Could you elaborate on how Obama is an advocate of free trade?  Are you referring to what he has said, or actual implementations of policy?  That is an important distinction to make.

The first thing I thought when you made all of those references to free trade was, did I miss something?  Was I asleep when he got us out of NAFTA and the WTO?

[cannon_fodder]

I disagree on several points.

1) Bowing to a foreign sovereign is not a nitpicky thing.   "To bow" literally means "to yield to another's wish or opinion; a sign of deference."  When our Head of State bows to another Head of State by implication the United States of American yields to that other nation.

I don't bow before my president, my president doesn't bow before anyone.

In this country is a small gaff.  Just a gesture.  But in many parts of the world such signs of deference have actual meaning.

2) A good oratory style helps SELL America.  If you can not speak well, you can not get your point across as well.  I thought he was excellent in the campaign and looked forward to the United States having a respected speaker give our positions.  The teleprompter crutch hinders that ability.
- - -

Neither is a deal breaker by any means.   But they are not meaningless matters.

[YoungTulsan]

As head of the executive branch of government, I judge him based on the execution of policies.

[jiminy]

The scary thing about the bow is that the White House is denying it happened.  Which it clearly did.  Why couldn't they just admit The  One made a mistake and didn't know the protocol?  Now the far-right extremists have even more ammunition to cast suspicion on Obama's true loyalties.