Losing the Luster (Obama)? [/vent]

[Gaspar]

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.

Bingo!  We have a winner!

Even if it was a small gaff, a reaction to the moment, there is no reason to deny it. 

If he had said in a strong presidential voice "I did bow to his Magisty in mutual respect, but not in prostration.  That is all."  This would be a non issue.

[buckeye]

-off topic-

The root of my distrust of movie stars speaking out politically is in their nearly consummate disconnect from life as the rest of us live it.

-on topic-
I read somewhere that it's considered insulting to bow to the kind of Saudi Arabia - or maybe that was just the hand-kissing, I can't remember...

[we vs us]

Even if it was a small gaff, a reaction to the moment, there is no reason to deny dwell on it. 

Fixed that for you.

[Gaspar]

Fixed that for you.

You're right WeVS.  Perhaps we should just "move on." 

. . . but that is exactly the point, this should have been a non-news item, but the flat denial that it happened in front of a thousand cameras is a huge disturbance.  Why? 

It serves no purpose to lie about something, unless you believe that your perception alone can influence the reality of a situation.

Can't you see how spells danger?  We've been down this road before.

[we vs us]

You're right WeVS.  Perhaps we should just "move on." 

. . . but that is exactly the point, this should have been a non-news item, but the flat denial that it happened in front of a thousand cameras is a huge disturbance.  Why? 

It serves no purpose to lie about something, unless you believe that your perception alone can influence the reality of a situation.

Can't you see how spells danger?  We've been down this road before.

But see, it doesn't really spell danger.  It really IS a non news item.  We're keeping it alive by obsessing over it. 

The flat denial was the right thing to do, because doing anything else would've dignified the accusation.  And it just doesn't deserve to be dignified. 

It was a mistake at best.  What else is there to say about it?     

[Gaspar]

But see, it doesn't really spell danger.  It really IS a non news item.  We're keeping it alive by obsessing over it. 

The flat denial was the right thing to do, because doing anything else would've dignified the accusation.  And it just doesn't deserve to be dignified. 

It was a mistake at best.  What else is there to say about it?     

I can understand that interpretation.  I don't agree with it, but over the years we have become accustom to to this type of denial.  I don't think it's right.  I didn't agree with it when Bill did it, or when Hillary did it, or  when president Bush did it, and I don't agree with it now.  Just because we've become accustom to it, doesn't make it any better.

Little denials have a way of adding up over time.  "Politician" has become a bad word for exactly this reason.  We reduce our leaders to salesmen, and they should be so much more.

We all know he made a mistake, but rather than knowing he made a simple mistake in protocol, we now focus his denial.  How is that better?

[we vs us]

I can understand that interpretation.  I don't agree with it, but over the years we have become accustom to to this type of denial.  I don't think it's right.  I didn't agree with it when Bill did it, or when Hillary did it, or  when president Bush did it, and I don't agree with it now.  Just because we've become accustom to it, doesn't make it any better.

Little denials have a way of adding up over time.  "Politician" has become a bad word for exactly this reason.  We reduce our leaders to salesmen, and they should be so much more.

We all know he made a mistake, but rather than knowing he made a simple mistake in protocol, we now focus his denial.  How is that better?

That's my point.  Focusing on this at all is the mistake.  What are we gaining by demanding that our President cop to bowing before a foreign dignitary?  What possible good could it do?  If he bowed and it was a mistake, rest assured both he and the prince understand that it was a flub.  Rest assured other foreign dignitaries understand it, too.  Better we just let it go, because I guarantee you the Saudi delegation has.

The only reason it's even a meme is that it's being pushed by right wing media to be there.  Like someone said upthread, it supports the basic "Obama's a sleeper Muslim agent," idea.  If we get a whiff of incompetence or bumbling, then so much the better because that supports the "Obama's too green to govern" idea. 

I'm content in that at least he didn't give Angela Merkle a massage.  Or, you know, vomit in the lap of the Japanese prime minister. 

[guido911]

Fixed that for you.

Well, where we you when Dan Quayle made the infamous "potatoe" gaffe or Palin's statement that Alaskans can see Russia?  As for dwelling on this bow issue, "President Pantywaist" (man that was funny) lying about the bow is simply another example of another lie in a pattern of lies he has told as I have chronicled. This lie, however, was just stupid.

[we vs us]

Re:  vacancies in the administration

Came across an interesting Huffpost article today about this  . . . and yes I understand it's Huffpost, but it's been sourced by AP writers, so there's at least some nugget of fact therein. 

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama doesn't have time for a victory lap now that his Cabinet is finally largely in place.

One level down, he faces gaping holes in the ranks he needs to fill if there is to be any hope of turning his ambitious agenda into action on health care, the environment and much more.

After a spurt of recent activity that followed a problem-plagued start, Obama is outpacing George W. Bush and Bill Clinton on appointments. But Obama, like his two immediate predecessors, is bogged down in a system that has grown increasingly cumbersome over the years. And he's added tougher-than-ever background checks and ethics rules.

Further down the article is this:

All told, Obama has about 500 appointments to make that are subject to Senate confirmation, and about 3,000 positions to fill overall, Light estimates.

By the White House's own count, Obama is outpacing his three predecessors at getting top-level appointees confirmed. But the numbers still are paltry, given all the vacancies to be filled. As of March 31, by an internal White House tally, Obama had 38 top-level officials confirmed, compared with 27 for George W. Bush, 37 for Clinton, and 27 for George H.W. Bush.

If true, at least that puts into perspective the sense of perceived staffing gaps.  Not that things couldn't move faster or more efficiently -- they always can -- but at least he's generally ahead of the game as it's been played in the past. 

At least one scholar they interviewed thought Obama's ethics requirements are too tight:

Obama added to the hurdles by imposing tougher ethics rules and by increasing scrutiny of nominees' taxes after revelations that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had failed to pay $34,000 in payroll taxes and that former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, Obama's first pick for health secretary, owed $140,000 in back income taxes and interest.

Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, said Obama was setting "Mother Teresa standards in a city with very few saints."

West called the number of appointees in place "dangerously low given the enormity of the challenges we face. Obama is holding his people to such a high standard it is wounding his administration."

[guido911]

Wow, and despite those standards, he still nominated Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Solis, Ron Kirk, and Killefer? Makes one wonder how awful the other applicants were.  And a quote in the article from the Brookings Institute? I caught hell for citing to Newsbusters once.

[USRufnex]

Just once?     I can't wait to start citing Newsbusters because IMHO it's only a matter of time before Hal "Late Great Planet Earth" Lindsey starts pushing Obama as the Anti-Christ...

Edit:  sorry, Hal's on WorldNetDaily.... get 'em confused sometimes....

[guido911]

Just once?     I can't wait to start citing Newsbusters because IMHO it's only a matter of time before Hal "Late Great Planet Earth" Lindsey starts pushing Obama as the Anti-Christ...

Edit:  sorry, Hal's on WorldNetDaily.... get 'em confused sometimes....

Way to ingore the primary point of my response. Show some courage, will ya?

[cannon_fodder]

But see, it doesn't really spell danger.  It really IS a non news item.  We're keeping it alive by obsessing over it. 

The flat denial was the right thing to do, because doing anything else would've dignified the accusation.  And it just doesn't deserve to be dignified. 

It was a mistake at best.  What else is there to say about it?     

Bill Clinton much?

In the case of Bill Clinton I agree - if he admitted to getting a BJ in the oval office and leaving stains all over her dress, then it was a non-issue.  If the President can't be sexually pleasured in his office, who can?  When he lied about it to the American people and went on to obstruct justice, it became an actual issue to me.

In this instance, I still believe admitted deference to a foreign King is a serious gaff.  Yes, something that could easily be passed off by saying "I was too concerned with being polite and did not realize the significance of the act."  But that hasn't happened.

What if Bush would have bowed to the Saudi King?  HOLY CRAP.  Can you imagine?  "Well, at least he made it official.  The USA is a subject of the crown of Saudi Arabia."  On and on and on.  And Bush probably would have said he didn't really bow, or just ignore the comment all together.

If Obama wanted to ignore the "accusation" (accusation generally means you are being accused, there is video showing this happening so the word doesn't exactly apply) might have been a more appropriate avenue.  A breach of protocol, not a matter of national sovereignty or any big deal.  But for some idiot to lie about it just makes it worse, not any better.

Not a deal breaker and I'm not calling for heads over it, but PLEASE don't feed the fire Obama.  I don't want another US vs. THEM administration.  Lets actually get stuff done.

[USRufnex]

Way to ingore the primary point of my response. Show some courage, will ya?

It is a shame that Richardson and Daschle aren't in Obama's cabinet... they should have been.

There.  All better?   

[Gaspar]

The UN has finally sent their strongly worded letter to the North Korean Gargoyle.  In the letter they condemned the launch and demanded that he not do it again. 

Good.  That's taken care of.  I guess we can move on.