VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД FIND US ON: YouTube Twitter
breakingnews
Go to main page   News   Blogs   Doug Wead   Obama’s changes. Can you believe in them?  
mostpopular
photo_of_the_day
bestvideos

Obama’s changes. Can you believe in them?

Published: 07 October, 2009, 13:19

Once in office, presidents often change their opinion or just “forget” their campaign promises. And they are notorious for saying falsehoods. Of course, we all “forget” and misspeak but because presidents do it in living color on the public stage it can be a little more embarrassing. Obama’s situation is a bit different. We cut him a lot of slack because he is our first African American president and that alone makes us feel good about ourselves. But his changes have come so fast and furiously that he is on the verge of losing respect as a leader. And poll after poll affirms that leadership is the single most important quality we want in a president.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan made prayer in school and abortion big deals in his campaign, but never touched the subjects or proposed legislation on them in the eight years of his presidency. He called for the abolition of the Department of Education - instead he grew it.

In 1988, George H. W. Bush ran as “the ethics president,” promising to upgrade the office of government ethics and make it answerable directly to the president. But he never did a thing about it. The position remained a low-level slot which answered to the Director of OPM. He also said, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” but he raised them anyway.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran for health care reform but when his ideas crashed on the rocks in his first year and helped elect a Republican majority in congress the second year he never brought it back again. He ignored it for the rest of his eight years. And btw, he famously said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” But we all know about that.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran against nation building, but after the election committed billions of dollars to Iraq and Afghanistan. We know the story of Saddam Hussein’s bogus uranium purchases in his State of the Union address.

So all presidents forget or change their minds or tell lies. Even so, Reagan was a consistent foe to Soviet Imperial expansion and ended the Cold War. Clinton balanced the budget. Bush the younger kept us safe after 9/11. They all have some bragging rights. And they all have moments of leadership. The problem for President Obama, at least for now, is that nothing is clear. No promise is sacred. Everything is on the table. There are no fixed stars to guide his course. His liberalism is indeed open-ended existentialism.

He said he wouldn’t tax the middle class, but his massive infusion of new paper money will eventually amount to a tax on all Americans and will hurt the poor the hardest, as inflation always does. And it looks like he will tax the middle class anyway. He just won’t admit it. He is using devices, such as redefining the middle class as a means to confuse the public.

He promised a non-partisan Washington, but used the economic crisis as a cover for passing a massive political pay-out to unions, gays and democrat shill organizations.

He is on again, off again on tort reform and a “public option” in his health plan.

He promised new jobs through a program that would rebuild the infrastructure, it was one of the few suggestions that critics felt had some merit, but then he set the timetables so far off that no immediate meaningful jobs appeared. It provided little relief for the economic crisis and unemployment is up.

He ran against the Bush fumbling of the mortgage crisis but refuses even to tweak the simplest banking rules that would allow millions of homeowners to stay in their own homes and unleash new investors who which would raise the values of those homes. All of his noise and promises offer relief to a tiny percentage of homeowners. This is a tragic and extravagant lost opportunity.

He ran against the overstretched military that is breaking up families, causing divorces and spiking suicide rates and now he is sending those same boys back again and again. So what is different?

He is against tort reform, he is for tort reform. He thinks the doctors are scamming the system, he thinks doctors are the leading the way. He is for a public option in the healthcare plan, he is against it.

He ran for change you can believe in, but the only things changing are his daily positions. And yes, he has a lot of goodwill, especially in the liberal media, who cast any opposition to any policy or position as racist, although that tactic didn’t work with the International Olympic Committee, leaving the president and his team a bit stunned.

The problem is that some of these changes are beginning to reach critical mass.

From the standpoint of presidential history, once an opinion sets in – positive or negative – it is very hard to erase. So this president should be very careful. He needs to stand for something, whatever it may be. He needs to avoid the reputation of uncertain and unprincipled leadership. It would almost have been better politically for him to have stood up to the doctors yesterday and gotten booed, and let the nation see him as a leader, than to contradict himself again by playing to his audience.

Back to top
0 (0 votes)
johnx, October 10, 2009, 01:58
0
All poloticians lie I guess that if they didn’t they wouldn’t be elected. Better to hear a nice lie than a hard truth. "So all presidents forget or change their minds or tell lies. Even so, Reagan was a consistent foe to Soviet Imperial expansion and ended the Cold War. Clinton balanced the budget. Bush the younger kept us safe after 9/11. They all have some bragging rights." Actually the Soviet Union collapse because it was withheld banking loans and depreciation in the value of oil which the Soviet system had it not received banking loans from western banks collapsed under all the regimes. By the 70’s taking advantage of the Jackson-Vanik amendment the USSR used it as a conduit for the black market economy to keep the Soviet economy afloat. And it had more to do with estimations of Europe’s future energy demands calculate during the mid 70’s Europe’s future would be dependent on Eurasian oil and gas then under USSR control hence Brezinski/Gates initiative under Carter administration to secretly train and finance Afghan Islamic guerrillas 6 months prior to the Soviet invasion hence it’s strategic position to push into Central Asia and the wars in Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Islamic insurgency in Xinjing and Kashmir. All of which perhaps maybe Kashmiri separatists are supported and financed by the CIA through organisations like NED. No coincidence that Brezinski was and is at the forefront who policy and lobbying against Serbia and Russia. In fact if you notice all the areas of highest Islamic fighting since the collapse of the USSR they are in geo-political areas with untaped oil reserves to be developed like Algeria. In the Balkans Clinton and his staff helped facilitate the establishment of international terrorism in Europe including Bin Laden personally meeting the President of Bosnia in 95 as well as Atta and KSM. As for bush protecting the US after 9/11 the fact that not a single terror cell has been convicted planning attacks against the US on domestic soil or credible evidence for Intel of an attack from abroad and even the CFR admitted the Taliban were not supporting Al Qaeda and Bin Laden did not run the camps in Afghanistan and there is no evidence connecting Afghanistan and Bin Laden to 9/11 (check out his FBI most wanted list on there website). The Taliban itself was created in the mid 90’s by the CIA/ISI. And all the links lead to the hijackers are the US closest allies Britain, Germany, France, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So Bush has helped spur the decline of the US dollar by getting it in trillions of dollars in debt by launching pointless protractive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, massive hike in the defence budget and continuing borrowing from abroad .
Phil Marx, October 08, 2009, 20:32
0
Bogdanov, I think that Gorbachev realized that Russia was militarily extended beyond its economic capacity. Given this fact, a major transition was inevitable. Gorbachev tried to ease Russia out of it’s unsustainable empire status, but when you shift the foundation the building is almost certain to crumble no matter how careful you are. I don’t think Gorbachev’s decision to not intervene as the eastern satellites began defecting was done out of benevolence but with the realization that Russia could simply not afford such a venture. I believe my country is now rapidly approaching the same position that Russia was in twenty years ago. I think that our own recent decision to not install missiles in Poland and Czech Republic is done largely because of the same circumstances Russia was faced with at the time. Obama is smart enough to realize that we are nearly maxed out and that extending our full military umbrella to those areas will cost far more than the benefits. Remember how Gorbachev’s new found friends, Reagan/Bush, repaid Russia’s decision to back down by extending the U.S. empire virtually to Russia’s own front door? Well, I think that Medvedev/Putin will respond to my own country’s regression with the same feigned concern. I think Russia’s recent flexing in Georgia and other areas, with little more than token opposition from U.S. is a sign of the times to come. So, while I agree with your assessment that Gorbachev is probably viewed by most Russians in a negative light, I should point out that if he had not been so realistic about the situation and instead tried to maintain an overextended position for much longer, then the Russia of today would be in a far worse position than it is. You have to break something down first in order to rebuild it better, and Gorbachev’s destruction was actually the precursor to Russia’s phoenix. And regarding your confusion about U.S. politics, don’t feel bad as I have the same problem. My country is increasingly becoming polarized between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism. When compromise is considered a dirty word, failure is inevitable. The dichotomy is just as absurd on social issues, but it is the economic dysfunction that will bring us down.