20 Jan 09: What the world wants from the new American president.

[CougarKing]

And Obama concludes his Asia trip with a stop in South Korea:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

SEOUL, South Korea – Treated to friendly roadside crowds and an elaborate welcome, President Barack Obama sped into the last round of his diplomacy tour in Asia on Thursday, a visit in South Korea.

Obama joined President Lee Myung-bak at the Blue House, South Korea's version of the White House, where the U.S. leader took in spectacular views of the hills of Seoul on a chilly, gray morning. Obama stood on red-carpeted steps and looked out on military regiments in colorful garb and flagwaving children.

The leaders walked down to the sprawling manicured lawn, taking in the pageantry as Obama shook hands. It was symbolic of America's ever-improving relations with South Korea, a crucial Asian ally.

"This was the most spectacular ceremony for a state visit we have been involved with," Obama gushed as the two leaders began their meetings. Said Lee of Obama's Asia trip: "You saved the best for last."

The two men were meeting privately before they were scheduled to make formal statements. In brief comments before reporters, Obama praised the success of the South Korean economy, saying it was one reason why the nation has become an important player on the world stage.

A stalled trade agreement, though, still looms as a a concern for the economic powerhouses.

Obama, winding up his weeklong Asian journey, is expected to emphasize the two nations' unified efforts to prod a defiant North Korea out of its nuclear weapons program. He's also welcoming South Korea's return to helping U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

Obama was embarking on perhaps the easiest leg of his whirlwind four-country Asian trip that has taken him away from Washington for the longest stretch of his presidency.

He made brief stops in Tokyo and Singapore before a longer, ceremony-filled visit to China.

Strongly pro-U.S., Lee took office in South Korea in early 2008, a year before Obama, and relations between the two countries have been improving. The tenure of President George W. Bush had seen anti-American sentiments become more common here.

Not so much now. The South Korean president, for instance, was the first foreign leader in Obama's presidency to get the honor of a joint appearance in the Rose Garden, in June.
"I hope to look at it as growing pains of a relationship maturing," said Lee Jung-hoon, an international relations expert and dean of Yonsei University in Seoul. "Certainly under Lee Myung-bak and Obama we are returning to normalcy."

A remaining sticking point has been trade. To South Korea's dismay, a free trade agreement that was signed in 2007 by the two governments under previous leaders has been stalled ever since in Congress.

The pact was already going nowhere on Democratic-run Capitol Hill during the Bush administration, which struck the deal after painstaking negotiations. Obama's election, with his concerns about U.S. access to the South Korean market for U.S. auto exports, put the deal in further doubt.

After his talks, Obama then has a brief rally at Osan Air Base outside Seoul with some of the 28,500 U.S. troops who are stationed in South Korea. It will be the third time Obama has addressed U.S. troops with his decision still pending on how many more Americans to send into the Afghanistan war.
With that decision deferred until after the trip — "certainly before year's end," was the elastic timeframe Obama offered in an NBC News interview — the South Korean visit is an opportunity to highlight international cooperation. Lee's government recently announced plans to expand a reconstruction team now helping to rebuild Afghanistan and to dispatch police and troops to protect them, two years after withdrawing all forces following a fatal hostage crisis.

Dozens of anti-war protesters rallied outside the U.S. Embassy on Wednesday chanting "no more South Korea troops to Afghanistan." Later, though, more than 100 people waved U.S. and South Korean flags and yelled, "Welcome, Obama, U.S.A."

North Korea is an area where little daylight separates the leaders, unlike before. They are united in their impatience with North Korea's habit of making overtures, getting rewards and then backtracking to raise tensions again, and Obama and Lee were expected to discuss next steps in detail.

Seoul, fearing a military strike over its border or a rush of refugees from the North has historically resisted a sterner approach toward ending the impasse over nuclear weapons — with it and China generally less interested than the U.S. and Japan in pursuing more sanctions. Those nations, as well as Russia, are in the six-party talks with North Korea over the active weapons program it has in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Lee, though, has changed tack, talking of a "grand bargain" in which Pyongyang would get a one-time offer of concessions to replace the step-by-step process that has yielded little so far.

Obama, too, has made much of his desire to take a different approach. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il said the country will return to the six-party process it abandoned earlier this year only if Washington engages separately in one-on-one talks with the North. Days before Obama's arrival in the region, administration officials said Stephen Bosworth, the U.S. special envoy for North Korea, would visit Pyongyang on an unspecified date, probably this year.

Trade, though, is trickier territory for the allies.

Despite positive talk about wanting to move the trade deal, the South Korean government has received no official proposal from the Obama administration on how to do so, said a senior South Korean government official, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity.

Obama reinforced the sense that the issue isn't on a fast track in a round of TV interviews hours before his South Korean arrival.

"The question is whether we can get it done in the beginning of 2010, whether we can get it done at the end of 2010," he told Fox News. "There's still some details that need to be worked out."

The accord would be the largest for the U.S. since the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s and the biggest ever for South Korea. Lee likes to talk of it as offering a $10 billion boon to the U.S. economy. The South Koreans have balked at any suggestion of reopening the agreement.

___

Associated Press writers Mark S. Smith, Yewon Kang, Soo Bin Park and Kell Olsen contributed to this story.

 

[mariomike]

"Biblical anti-Obama slogan: Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister?: Psalms 109:8 says, 'Let his days be few; and let another take his office.' The citation is being passed around the Internet as a rallying cry against President Obama.":
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/16/biblical-anti-obama-slogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister/

 

[Rifleman62]

"Give me x years, and you will not recognize xxx"

 

[a_majoor]

Well, he can be decicive and presidential if a real problem arises:

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2009/11/28/no-dithering-around/

No Dithering Around

Decisive presidential action as O leaps into action, orders a full review of how the reality TV crashers managed to take over his party, make him look silly. Politico:
President Barack Obama has ordered a full review into how a Virginia couple managed to make their way into the White House for last week’s state dinner without an invitation, even getting so far as to meet the president in the official receiving line, according to a White House official.

Three days after a pair of Virginia socialites and reality TV wannabes crashed the administration’s first state dinner, the White House acknowledged for the first time Friday that they met Obama himself at the event – raising even more questions about whether the breach could have posed a security risk.

We haven’t seen this kind of into-the-breach rapid response since Obama accused Sgt. Crowley of “acting stupidly.” No, make that since Obama called for the Beer Summit after he accused Sgt. Crowley of “acting stupidly.” No pussyfooting around, he wants action. It’s impressive. Very decisive. Very presidential-like.* No messing around with, “I’ll review it when I feel like it. After I review the review. No wait, I want a full review of the review of the review.” I’d call this a pretty positive development. Maybe we can think about applying this kind of decisive approach to broader national security issues.

HotAir with the vid: Crashers’ entrance announced!

NYT’s take on the news, includes the background about the Salahi family running a winery, enjoying a tipple, having all kinds of debt. Hey, that sounds all kinds of haram.

Jammie Wearing Fool thinks they’re in for harsh reality. IRS probe, etc. Whatever, I just hope it’s harsh reality TV. What more do Mr. and Mrs. Salahi have to do to prove they are a world-class reality TV act? 

* Look, I know what you’re going to say. Obama doesn’t need to order a full review. The Secret Service had already figured out for itself it needs a full review. Maybe, just to make the point, Rahm Emanual could order the full review. The president needs to concern himself with a couple of wackjob publicity seekers … doesn’t he have more important things to do? What’s he going to do next, start calling in experts. Have a sitdown with Joe Biden.

(One thing I would not recommend is a full review of Tareq Salahi. Don’t want to find out whether there’s anything to that chatter about him being an Alestinian-Pay Ctivist-Ay. Could get awkward. You could find yourself in civil rights violation territory quick if it turns out he ever sent any money to Save the Hamas Children.)

I say let’s give O a chance. This is like a set of 3 a.m. training wheels. You’re the president of the United States and some Palestinian businessman and his blonde shicksa or whatever the Arab equivalent is just waltzed into your state dinner with reality TV cameras in tow. You’re the president of the United States and, I dunno, Iran is shooting demonstrators, or the Taliban is acting up and your general needs to launch that counterinsurgency, something like that … whaddaya gonna do? “Full Review! Now!” This kind of experience is going to come in handy when he gets around to being presidential.

(Care to comment? Use the “contact” link to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand. Include your preferred screenname and temporary password. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, meanspirited rightwingers all welcome. This is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)

 

[CougarKing]

Obama is about to launch his plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091130/us/politics_us_afghanistan_usa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday prepared to announce he will deploy about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as part of a new strategy that aims to lay the ground for an eventual withdrawal.


After three months of deliberations, Obama will outline his plans in an address to war-weary Americans on Tuesday at 8 p.m. EST/0100 Wednesday GMT from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.


His aim is turn the tide on what U.S. military commanders call a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan due to a resurgent Taliban. He may face a tough sell at home with many Americans skeptical of sending more troops and wanting more focus on the weak U.S. economy and 10.2 percent jobless rate.


Obama told U.S. military commanders on Sunday that he had settled on a plan and gave the orders to carry it out, the White House said. He also held a meeting to inform top advisers of his decision.


"The commander in chief delivered the orders," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.


Obama briefed allies on his plan on Monday and will talk to congressional leaders on Tuesday before delivering his speech.

(...)

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile:  Does it really matter?

What the Arab Street thinks of Obama (per Fouad Ajami)-  "He talks too much"

....Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.

Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.

On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments....

 

[a_majoor]

A mixed message. While the speech itself was fairly sound, some of the administration members characterising West Point as the "enemy camp" showed the true face of the administration under the mask:

http://newledger.com/2009/12/view-from-west-point-we-are-not-the-enemy/

View From West Point: We Are Not The Enemyby Ben Salvito

On Tuesday night, President Obama addressed the world and announced his decision regarding the conflict in Afghanistan. The New York Times, preempting his remarks, declared that his speech here “may be one of the most defining decisions of his presidency.” Soon soldiers will be deployed overseas in pursuance of his new strategy, and the debate has begun throughout the media and political arenas as to whether this decision was the right one.

The President chose the United States Military Academy at West Point as his backdrop carefully and deliberately. As one of America’s great bastions of military power and a crucible for teaching leadership, the cadets and those who work to teach them are among the most affected by his words. Unfortunately, the President’s decision to place his podium at West Point and the reaction of the Corps of Cadets to his speech has been criticized by the media almost as much as the new strategy itself.

Many members of the media condemned the audience for its lack of enthusiasm or emotion in response to what was said, though it is unclear what alternative reaction was expected. To applaud or to boo at the announcements made last night would have both been equally inappropriate for the Corps of Cadets. In fact, the stoic reaction by all ought to leave the world confident in the Corps’ and the military’s ability to be apolitical and execute the policies of the President and Congress with fervor and duty. In an interview posted on Politico, Arron Conley, the President of the Class of 2010, said, “My role is not to advocate policy but to execute it.” No words more accurately describe the mission of the officers in the US Army and those whom they lead.

In the most polemical of criticisms, TV pundit Chris Matthews stated that in coming to West Point, the President made an “interesting” decision speaking at the “the enemy camp.” He said that the crowd exhibited “if not resentment, skepticism” and that it lacked “warmth.” Later acknowledging the potential ramifications of such a controversial statement, he attempted to assuage critics by stating that “maybe earlier tonight I used the wrong phrase, ‘enemy camp,’ but the fact of the matter is that he went up there to a place that’s obviously ‘military.’”

This is perhaps the most vapid response one could muster, especially in an attempt to retract such a scathing statement. The President came to West Point because he desired to address those whom his decision would affect the most. From my experience, West Point cadets are one of the most polite audiences in America. A letter published at National Review Online says it best:

Whether out of professionalism (the vast majority of cadets) or fear of punishment (the rest of them), the Corps of Cadets would never be disrespectful to the Commander-in-Chief. In fact, West Point may be the only place in America where President Obama can simultaneously trash George W. Bush and announce an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan and not be booed from the right or the left.

Indeed, the President came to West Point because of the non-partisan nature of the institution, which truly exemplifies the beauty and finesse of the civil-military relationship. The Corps was reminded to be reserved, restrained, and respectful, as any military audience ought to be.

“Presidents often use the Oval Office or a joint session of Congress for major announcements, but some speeches call for more creative scene-setting. Often, presidential stagecraft is subliminally used to answer critics,” wrote the New York Times in the aftermath of the speech. Past Presidents from Eisenhower to Bush have understood this distinction and chose military instead of political forums to give an address. By coming to West Point, both implicitly in choosing this location and explicitly in his remarks, the President demonstrated his respect for the profession of arms and the sacrifice required of all who serve.

Cadets are trained in acceptance of orders, and the Commander-in-Chief was effectively issuing an order to all who were present. No cadet will be spared from the effects of President Obama’s remarks — his message has been received and internalized by all who were present in Eisenhower Hall. I am humbled by the President’s decision to announce his new strategy at my school and completely reject the notion of any who suggest that West Point is in any way “the enemy camp.” The enemy camps are in Helmand province, where soldiers are currently engaged in the President’s mission.

As a member of the Class of 2010, I am preparing to graduate and utilize the skills and lessons that West Point has taught me to join those deployed and contribute to the Afghanistan conflict. I am confident that my classmates all feel similarly, and it will be an honor to serve beside them.

Ben Salvito is a cadet at West Point and is majoring in International Law. He will graduate in May 2010 as an aviator.

 

[mariomike]

"Smile if you must, but please don't bow: How to be charming in China? A democratic leader having to visit a dictatorship is somewhat like a temperance preacher obliged to tour a distillery. He can't be too charming without compromising his principles (and offending his constituency) yet unless he's somewhat charming, there's no point in going at all.":
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=50fb2779-7321-4e97-aa65-14938954ae12

 

[a_majoor]

Well, a large part of the world really does want this:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGU1YTExODkwOGE4ZjVlMTE3OWM3ZDNhODRhYzM3YTE=

The Unrealistic Realist
Leader of the free world? Not Obama’s bag.

By Mark Steyn

If you happen to live in Kabul or Jalalabad, Ghurian or Kandahar, then a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is, indeed, about Afghanistan. If you live anywhere else on the planet, a U.S. presidential speech about Afghanistan is really about America — about American will, American purpose, American energy. How quickly the bright new dawn fades to the gray morning after. In Europe, the long awaited unveiling of this most thoughtful of presidents’ deliberations got mixed reviews — some bad, some brutal. Der Spiegel called it “half-hearted,” the Guardian called it “desperate.” And those are his friends.

You could watch the great orator’s listless, tentative performance with the sound down and get the basic message: I don’t need this in my life right now. If you read the text, it made even less sense. There’s something for everyone: A surge! . . . and a withdrawal. He’s agreed to surge for a bit, but only in preparation for a de-surge in 18 months’ time. I said on the radio that the speech reminded me of the English nursery rhyme:

The Grand Old Duke of York
He had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again.

The Grand Young Duke of Hope has 30,000 men. He’ll march them up the Khyber Pass but he’ll march them down again in July 2011. If you’re some village headman who’s been making nice to the Americans, the Taliban have a whole new pitch for you: In a year and a half, the Yanks are going. But we’ll still be here.

“Our goal in war,” wrote Basil Liddell Hart, the great strategist of armored warfare, “can only be attained by the subjugation of the opposing will.” In other words, the object of war is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks but the enemy’s will. That goes treble if, like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, he hasn’t got any tanks in the first place. So what do you think Obama’s speech did for the enemy’s will? He basically told ’em: We can only stick another 19 months, so all you gotta do is hang in there for 20. And in an astonishingly vulgar line even by the standards of this White House’s crass speechwriters he justified his announcement of an exit date by saying it was “because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.” Or, as Frank Sinatra once observed, “It’s very nice to go trav’ling/But it’s so much nicer . . . to come home”:

“It’s very nice to just wander the camel route to Iraq . . . but it’s so much nicer, yes it’s oh so nice to wander back.”

As I said, Obama’s speech is only about Afghanistan if you’re in Afghanistan. If you’re in Moscow or Tehran, Pyongyang or Caracas, it’s about America. And what it told them is that, if you’re a local strongman with regional ambitions, or a rogue state going nuclear, or a mischief-making kleptocracy dusting off old tsarist dreams, this president is not going to be pressing your reset button. Strange how an allegedly compelling speaker is unable to fake even perfunctory determination and resilience. Strange, too, how all the sophisticated nuances of post-Bush foreign-policy “realism” seem so unreal when you’re up there trying to sell them as a coherent strategy. Go back half a decade to when the administration was threatening to shove democracy down the throats of every two-bit basket case whether they want it or not. Democratizing the planet is, in a Council of Foreign Relations sense, “unrealistic,” but talking it up is a very realistic way of messing with the dictators’ heads. A pipsqueak like Boy Assad sleeps far more soundly today than he did back when he thought Bush meant it, and so did the demonstrators threatening his local enforcers in Lebanon.

As for Assad’s friends in Tehran, you wonder if they’re not now flouting “world opinion” merely to see how ever more watery and qualified the threats from Washington get. The tireless Anne Bayefsky reported this week that the administration’s latest response to Iran’s nuclear provocations is to “start shifting our focus to the track of pressure.” It’s a good thing the diplomatic cable is a mostly metaphorical concept these days because, priced per word, Washington’s are getting expensive. Starting to shift our focus to the track of pressure isn’t the same as “pressure.” Nor is it even a first step on “the track of pressure.” Nor is it even a commitment to “focus” on “the track of pressure.” But it does represent a clear start to shifting the administration’s focus from whatever it’s focusing on right now to focusing on the possibility of shifting its focus to the track of pressure with the possible goal, once it’s focused on shifting to the track of pressure, of eventually applying some. Not now. Not next month. But maybe at some point sometime, once we’ve figured out what meaningless gestures the Russians and Chinese would agree not to veto . . .

Like Europe, the Obama administration’s “realists” have decided that, if the alternative is summoning up the will to prevent a nuclear Iran, it’s easier to live with it. The realpolitik crowd’s biggest turn-on among their many peculiar fetishes is “stability,” yet they’re stringing along with what will be the single biggest destabilizing factor in geopolitics in a generation. Iran’s president may be a millennial crackpot, but he’s thinking more realistically than the “realists.” If you can bulldoze your way into the nuclear club without paying a price, why not go for it? Pakistan had to do it quietly, in the shadows. Iran’s done it brazenly, daring the world to stop her. We didn’t — notwithstanding that the Islamic Republic has a 30-year track record of saying what it means and then doing it. If you were ever going to hold the nuclear line, this is the place to do it. And the fact that we didn’t is a huge victory for the mullahs long before the first nukes are ready to fly.

One of the most interesting developments in recent months have been the emerging alliances of convenience between Iran and its clients, on the one hand, and the likes of Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela on the other. Some of this is simple mischief-making, but, in the vacuum of the Hopeychange, a lot of it shows a shrewd strategic calculation. A nuclear Tehran, for example, serves Moscow’s interest in promoting itself as a guarantor of Eastern European “security.” It’s one of the oldest of protection rackets: You need me to protect you from my psycho friend. For their part, the Sunni Arab dictatorships will soon face the choice of accepting de facto Persian regional hegemony or embarking on their own nuclearization. As for Israel, they’ll either be living under the ever-present threat of annihilation. Or they’ll be dead.

Whatever your view of this scenario, “stability” doesn’t seem to cover it. In his speech, the so-called “leader of the free world” all but physically recoiled from the job description. Sorry about that. Not his bag. In the more toxic presidential palaces, you would have to be awfully virtous not to take advantage of such a man. And soon.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn

 

[a_majoor]

VDH on what everyone sees in BHO:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-are-we-tiring-of-obama/

Why Are We Tiring of Obama?

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On December 10, 2009 @ 10:28 am In Uncategorized | 104 Comments

The China Presidency

I have an heirloom china pitcher on my mantle that has dozens of glued cracks—so much so that it is now purely ornamental and will not hold water. When I was a boy I’d ask my mother when, and under what circumstances, did the china crack apart.

She would provide stories about each fissure and mend, many of the break narratives handed down to her from her own grandparents in the house. There wasn’t one single accident, but instead dozens that rendered a once useful pitcher into an non-functional art object.

Something of the same is happening with our President. He is experiencing the sharpest popularity decline in the history of first-year administrations. The problem is not just that he inherited a bad economy; Reagan did too. Or that the war in Afghanistan heats up, since it is not nearly as bad as the mess Nixon inherited in Vietnam.

Instead, after 11 months there has emerged a series of bothersome incidents that the public has come to associate with Obama, both the man and his philosophies. Some are major policy issues; others trivial acts of no cosmic importance. None in themselves matter all that much. Each gaffe or mistake was contextualized and mended, or attended to by Robert Gibbs. Some are Obama’s fault; others the work of associates. Sometimes mere chance is the culprit.

I know Bush had his own list of catastrophes; other Presidents did as well. Again, my point is not trying to adjudicate relative culpability, but rather just to remind us all how and why Obama dived over 20 points in the polls in just 11 months—and his speeches transformed from inspirational to caricatures.

In short,  taken together, after nearly a year, these fissures have nearly ruined the once pretty texture of the Obama administration, and almost rendered it incapable of effective governance.

Here is a random selection. I provide no chronology or theme. Nor do I judge the relative importance of any one incident. The point, again, is only that each was a fissure, some small, some major—all were glued over. The result is that now the public understands that its china presidency is fragile and held together by mere glue.

Here it goes:

Constant apologies abroad for everything from slavery to Hiroshima

Bows to Saudi royalty, the Japanese emperor, and Chinese autocrats

The on-again/off-again Guantanamo shut-down mess

The fight with the former CIA directors

The public show trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed

The reach out to Ahmadinejad Castro, Chavez, and assorted thugs

The Honduras fiasco

Czars everywhere

The serial “Bush did it”/reset whine abroad

The Queen of England/I-pod fiasco

Gordon Brown gets snookered in his gift-giving

Unceremoniously shipping back the Churchill bust

The end of the special relationship with the UK

The New York on-the-town presidential splurge

Anita Dunn and her Mao worship

Timothy Geithner/Tom Daschle/Hilda Solis and their taxes

What ever happened to Gov. Richardson?

“No lobbyists” = gads of them

The Podestas’ insider influence-peddling empire

Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” chauvinism

The Special Olympics silly quip

Trashing Nancy Reagan

The Skip Gates/police acting “stupidly” mess

The get-Chicago-the-Olympics jaunt to Copenhagen

Cap-and-trade boondoggle

“Millions of green jobs”

Ignore gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power production

Cash-for-clunkers

The Joe Biden gaffe machine

Jobs “saved” or “created” rather than references to the actual unemployment rates

Van Jones, the racist and truther

Desiree Rogers won’t testify

The blowback from, and silence about, the Rangel/Dodd corruption

The White House party crashers plan to take the 5th Amendment

The ‘bipartisanship’ con

The pork-barrel stimulus spoils

The demonization of the Town-Hallers

The Acorn Mess

The Kevin Jennings/Safe School Czar embarrassment

The SEIU direct access to the White House

The Asian Tour comedown

The politicization of the take-over of GM and Chrysler

The Obama readjustment in the order of paying back car creditors

Car dealerships closed on shaky criteria

Obama as “Caesar”

The Emanuel “never let a serious crisis go to waste” boast

The Black Caucus/Rangel/Waters bid to bail out the inner-city radio stations

Yosi Sergant and the NEA

$1.7 trillion deficit

The planned $9 trillion added to the national debt

New income tax rates; health care surcharge talk; and payroll tax caps to be lifted

Rahm Emanuel’s promised payback to those states that trash the stimulus

The supposed C-span aired health care debate

The promised website posts of pending legislation

Czechs and Poles sold out on missile defense

Sermons to and finger pointing at the Israelis

The failed ‘Putin helps to stop a nuclear Iran’ gambit

Voting present on the Iranian reformers in the street

Serial but empty deadlines to Ahmadinejad

The good war/bad war twisting and turning on Iraq/Afghanistan

The months-long dithering over Afghanistan

Renditions, tribunals, Patriot Act, etc. once trashed, now OK

Health-care take-over

The 2,000 page proposed new health code

The embarrassing Nobel Peace Prize nomination

The attacks on surgeons, Chamber of Commerce, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.

The Islam mythologies in the Cairo Speech

The al Arabiya “Bush did it” interview

Obama’s TV “my Muslim faith” gaffe

The Nobel Speech

I listened to it this morning quite early and posted at NRO. Bottom line: an academic sermon on peace/war with the now accustomed Obama characteristics:

1)    long again (4,000 words); 2) “I” or “me” 34 times: same old self referencing; 3) the inadvertent cosmic arrogance [“I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.” = you think?]; 4) straw men trope: some say this; others say that; but I uniquely say…; 5) reference to my own personal inspirational  story; 6) trash my predecessor or his policies; 7) end with hopey/changey cadences.

That was pretty much it—a pulpit exegesis that could have been cut to 500 words. I would have done the speech in 10 minutes and used the extra time to have lunch with poor neglected King Harald. (Second recommendation: Obama should try to hire some speech-writers over 40. There are a lot of old pro Democrat wordsmiths around that might come in and offer something new other than the now tired boilerplate.)

Some books…

As I mentioned a few posts ago, I’m rereading two great books on Belisarius—the 1828 classic by the then 24-year-old Lord Mahon (with a new intro by Jon Coulston), and a new biography by Ian Hughes. They read like Greek tragedies: Belisaurius is Justinian’s fireman, sent to stop Persians, Goths, Vandals, etc. always with too few troops, a plotting wife, court intrigue at his back, and a never satisfied emperor at home—apparently in some hope that Romanism could hold back the tide in the crumbling 6th century.

I am halfway through David Horowitz’s moving tribute to his late daughter Sarah (A Cracking of the Heart) that recounts their four-plus-decades relationship through turbulent politics, ill heath, and the often baffling past three decades in America. A sad, but fine reflection on life and the inevitably of change and death.




Article printed from Works and Days: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-are-we-tiring-of-obama/

 

[Rifleman62]

It  might be funny if it wasn't the truth. 

 

[OldSolduer]

I've never been accused of being a deep thinker but what I expect from a so called "world leader":

More time on national and international affairs and less time talking with the Queen Bee Oprah. How many hours were taken from POTUS because they want to appeal to the "celebrity" of the job and not the depth. And people think I'm shallow....

At least Stephen Harper told Bono to "buzz off" rather than meet with him, but I will save that rant for another time.

 

[Rifleman62]

And that's not the only national TV show that he was on yesterday. Granted they were taped.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yes it was taped but consider this:

For a 3- 5 minute spot on the National, the crew worked with us for three hours. How long would production take for an hour long special?

Not only that, but the production crew would have to have been cleared by the Secret Service, right? How many man hours ...sorry person hours would that have taken? Would that time been better spent on averting credible threats to POTUS?

As far as I'm concerned, this was as much about Oprah and her agenda as it was covering Christmas in the White House.

 

[Redeye]

It  might be funny if it wasn't the truth.

It's not the truth, though.  As much as those praying for Obama to fail want it to be, there's no substance to it.

What I don't get is this: do these people not see that Obama failing will impact them?  It's like, as someone I know said, hoping your landlord can't make his mortgage.  It makes no sense at all.

The guy's not a messiah, and cannot fix everything.  He's got four years to try to improve upon problems that were years in the making (and notice, I'm not blaming anyone or any party for anything).  America's economic and foreign policy challenges are not going to go away overnight, the very idea of that is ludicrous.

 

[a_majoor]

Sadly, the failures of the Obama Administration are happening right now, and the impact on Canada from such things as rapidly ballooning deficits and debt, protectionist economic policies either open (Buy American) or hidden (Cap and Trade), foreign policy which appeases aggressive authoritarian regimes etc. are going to have a huge negative impact on all of us and our standard of living.

Those wishing for Obama to fail are hoping that:

a. Most of the initiatives supported by the Administration (Health care, Cap and Trade, Stimulus spending) are stalled or defeated in the Congress and never get passed, or more realistically, are watered down so much no further damage is done; and,

b. The Democrat party looses it's majority in 2010 and he looses the 2012 election.

It might be OK to hope the landlord goes bankrupt if you then have a chance to buy the house. It might be disturbing to live in the rental if you think the owner might torch it to get the insurance money...

 

[Rifleman62]

Redeye, you should live in the US, talk to the people to open your eyes. It depends what State of course. You could take a summer trip and shoot the breeze with the people you meet in a couple of states.

If President Obama is successful in four years, well I posted this quote a few weeks ago: "Give me x years, and you will not recognize xxx" . If you know your history you will know who said that. And no I am not saying the two are alike.

Do you know what the US deficit is now?  Do you know what the US debt is now? Do you know what the estimate is of the deficit and debt will be if President Obama and Nasty Nancy get their way? Do you think this freight train will have an impact on Canada or not?

 

[Redeye]

Maybe I missed something - but when did any member of the adminstration make the "enemy camp" reference.  Last time I checked, MSNBC pundits are not members of the administration.  Did someone else say it?

A mixed message. While the speech itself was fairly sound, some of the administration members characterising West Point as the "enemy camp" showed the true face of the administration under the mask:

http://newledger.com/2009/12/view-from-west-point-we-are-not-the-enemy/

 

[Redeye]

Rifleman62,

Respectfully, I'm married to an American.  A southerner from a staunchly Southern Baptist family (except her, of course), no less.  I talk to friends and family of hers quite a bit.  I've travelled extensively in the US and I never shy away from a chance to discuss politics, and I recognize that the Weltanschauung of Americans is very different from that of Canadians.  I'm mostly shocked, however, of the way that the debate is so masterfully manipulated there, and most commonly it seems by the right, though the influence of lobbyists runs on both sides.

The same thing does happen here too - though it appears to be much worse there - particularly since legislative processes work so differently - you don't see debate on bills veer so far off the rails on the basis of unrelated or tangentially related debate (remember the stimulus plan in the US being almost derailed by arguments of subsidies for wooden arrows made in Oregon?!)

The American deficit is staggering though not the worst in the world, and it's why I don't get the right mantra of "tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts".  It's as though the right still wants the government to pay for things but doesn't want to raise the resources - tax cuts are stimulative - a bit - but when the public is drowning in debt all that money goes to is paying off debt (or just interest) and it's not very stimulative - witness the "stimulus cheques" fired out by Bush - they had basically zero impact.

Fundamentally reworking some of the ways that the US government spends money - including some manner of comprehensive health care reform the form of which I am presently ambivalent about, is critical.  Extracting the US military from the mess in Iraq and having a plan to get out of Afghanistan are important.  Trying to build security by engaging with old foes rather than threatening them is going to be key because it's cheaper, and I can't see it being any less effective than the strongarming approach that has accomplished basically nothing.

The net impact on deficit is still hotly debated but long term could improve.  Doing nothing is no longer an option, because it is a train wreck unfolding in slow motion.

Redeye, you should live in the US, talk to the people to open your eyes. It depends what State of course. You could take a summer trip and shoot the breeze with the people you meet in a couple of states.

If President Obama is successful in four years, well I posted this quote a few weeks ago: "Give me x years, and you will not recognize xxx" . If you know your history you will know who said that. And no I am not saying the two are alike.

Do you know what the US deficit is now?  Do you know what the US debt is now? Do you know what the estimate is of the deficit and debt will be if President Obama and Nasty Nancy get their way? Do you think this freight train will have an impact on Canada or not?

 

[Redeye]

That laundry list of sore points of VDH's is to me a lot of fluff and full of red herrings:

Constant apologies abroad for everything from slavery to Hiroshima - I hear this all the time but most of what's been pointed out to me as "apologies" are better read as "acknowledgements of history" - I haven't really heard Obama apologize for anything, but a right winger I talk to all along somehow interpreted the Cairo speech as apologizing for American colonialism which never happened.  I read the text of the speech about a dozen times and never once did he attribute colonialism to anything more specific than "the West" and never was there anything apologetic abouit it.

Bows to Saudi royalty, the Japanese emperor, and Chinese autocrats - Signs of respect and customary greeting - though seems Obama was a little too enthusiastic - this is being blown totally out of proportion and context.

The on-again/off-again Guantanamo shut-down mess - Great idea to get the place closed up but it's not as easy as it sounds, there's lots of issues to try to reconcile.

The public show trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed - Almost all trials in the US are public.  What does the right propose to do with him?  He has to face some manner of justice and be disposed of somehow, with some reasonable semblance of a fair trial and due process.

The reach out to Ahmadinejad Castro, Chavez, and assorted thugs - As I said before, attemting strongarming these people has so far done nothing but embolden them - trying to actually deal with them might actually soften their positions, and loosen their grip on their populations which will lead them to the dustbins of history.  American tourists in Cuba will undermine the Castro regime faster than rhetoric will.

The Honduras fiasco - This one is a whole thread onto itself, but Honduras' constitution has a process, and a coup isn't it.

Czars everywhere - How many did Bush have?  47 I think?

The serial “Bush did it”/reset whine abroad  This is problematic - it's not enough to blame the past administrations, I agree.  Yes, Obama inherited a terrible mess from Bush (though the problems go back much further in some cases) but it's not enough to simply say "Hey, I didn't make the mess."  There has to be a clear plan to get out of it - and at least that's what Obama got elected on.  I don't totally disagree with this being a fault of Obama's because it doesn't always seem clear to me that there's the exit plan, but at the same time I don't see that he does nothing but whine.  POTUS doesn't get a magic wand to magically fix everything.

The end of the special relationship with the UK - what "special relationship" and how'd it end?

Anita Dunn and her Mao worship - Red herring.  Dunn is a comms director not a policymaker for one thing - and secondly, how quickly the right forgets that many of their own also admired certain ideas of Mao.  He was an evil, murderous tyrant by the end but also had lots of broadly applicable ideas about politics.  Dunn didn't say she endorsed Maoism, but this was trumpted up into far more than it really should have been.

The Special Olympics silly quip - Minor, stupid, and very well handled in the end when Obama invited their bowlers to the White House.  A gaffe, yes.  They happen.

The get-Chicago-the-Olympics jaunt to Copenhagen - Okay, I'll give you this one.  That was a gong show and a half.

Cap-and-trade boondoggle - Again, this one I haven't firmed an opinion on and could warrant a thread of its own - too complex to over simplify.

“Millions of green jobs” - Were you expecting this overnight?! The demand for technologies is there, and either the US can get into the market, or wait while others do.


Cash-for-clunkers - shifting demand for automobiles to when manufacturers needed cash flow to get themselves financial stable - AND got a lot of old and more pollution heavy/fuel inefficient vehicles off the road?  Win.

Van Jones, the racist and truther - Who refuted what he signed on to years ago.  I'm sure we could find some good dirt on anyone if we looked hard enough into their past - and if not, you can always make it up or take something out of context.

The White House party crashers plan to take the 5th Amendment - And that has what to do with Obama, exactly?

The ‘bipartisanship’ con - Hard to be bipartisan when the other side doesn't want to play along.  Please, someone send me some information on the Republican plan for health care reform that they apparently agree is needed.  Rep Grayson called them out on this one beautifully, to the best of my knowledge they still do not have a cogent plan.  Of course, thanks to all the bickering and side tracking, it seems no one does, so I guess I can't only blame one side.

The pork-barrel stimulus spoils - a bipartisan mess.

The demonization of the Town-Hallers - in the case of the conduct of many of them and the way the whole concept was manipulated by lobbyists - not entirely undeserved.

The Acorn Mess - blown totally out of proportion by certain idiot pundits.  Most of what I've seen about Acorn is nonsense - but I'll concede I don't know the whole story.

The SEIU direct access to the White House - Hasn't that been debunked?

The Emanuel “never let a serious crisis go to waste” boast - Anyone remember the Mike Harris era?  John Snobeln (sp?) and the urgent need to create a crisis to effect change?  That's a common political strategy, hardly restricted to any part of the spectrum.

I'd keep going but I've got other things to do - that's the problem I see in American politics right now - rather than debate legitimate important issues, it veers right off the rails to the kind of nonsense the makes for Glenn Beck's infotainment.