BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 12:42 PM

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Obama has returned from his first trip abroad with praise ringing in his ears from the media elite and barely a word of protest from the Republican opposition.

It truly was an extraordinary introduction on the world stage for our celebrity president, and his only rival for attention was the first lady.

He is a true talent and performs with the best of them. You can like the man and disagree with his policies, but you're a fool if you underestimate him. The headlines said it all -- from California's Sacramento Bee: "President's overseas debut a love feast!" The Washington Post: "Obama portrays another side of the U.S." The Fort Wayne Journal: "Obama rallies troops in Baghdad."

But in spite of the rave reviews and talk of a brand new relationship with the world, it was also a week of reality. Great leaders are always looking at the past and learning from those who go before them. As William Shakespeare said: What is past is prologue.

The following quote, which could be written today, is from the past:

"The president continues to be highly regarded. By solid majorities of 65 percent or more, those surveyed said he has a vision for the country's future, has brought dignity back to the White House and is a strong leader willing to make hard decisions," reported a CNN/Gallup Poll.

The time was the end of 2003 and the president was the now despised-by-many George W. Bush after he visited Iraq at Thanksgiving for the first time.

So, the next time you hear the pundits chattering about the president's approval ratings on cable television, remember Bush's approval rating remained above 80 percent for nearly six months after 9/11 and above 70 percent for 10 months after that. He remained popular with a 63 percent approval rating at the time of the 2002 elections, helping Republicans to achieve rare congressional seat gains in a midterm election year.

As the second president to go stealthily into Iraq to praise our troops, President Obama warned our newest ally, the Iraqi government, that the ball was now in their court and that we are getting out of there on schedule.

I thought this was a wonderful way to end the trip as commander-in-chief, thanking our brave men and women who have given so much. But it did make me think of the immediate past president, who was equally praised on his first visit to Iraq. And on his last visit, an Iraqi journalist threw shoes at his head and was cheered on by his countrymen.

Even though President Obama spoke to the G-20 leaders as friends, addressed them more humbly than his predecessor and apologized for past perceived slights, the Europeans, especially France and Germany, weren't going to follow the United States in supporting an expanded stimulus program. They weren't going to follow us into Afghanistan, either, with their combat troops.

Even before the G-20 began, our new banker, China, expressed doubts about all its loans to us. Chinese officials stated, at a most inopportune time, that the world may need to find a new reserve currency rather than the U.S. dollar. We hope they will loan us the $100 billion we committed to the International Monetary Fund as a result of this meeting, money that we don't have and will have to borrow.

At almost the same time the president was advocating his vision of a world without nuclear arms and arguing that it is an achievable goal, reality came forth again. The North Koreans, who repeatedly dismissed as idle threats U.S. and U.N. warnings regarding their attempts at obtaining nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them, on Saturday fired a rocket over Japan on its way to either space or Alaska.

Even though the alleged satellite didn't make it into orbit, the ripples it created went way beyond the Pacific Ocean where it crash-landed. Even our beloved governor of Alaska warned us that the North Koreans are coming, the North Koreans are coming.

The two old superpowers, China and Russia, wanted immediate sit-down summits later in the year to take the measure of the man. President Obama's reward for agreeing to the meetings was that both countries did everything possible to make sure the U.N. Security Council did nothing to condemn North Korea for its rocket blast. Beware of leaders calling you "comrade" on the first date.

The president's visit to Turkey, a key ally, was also historic. The first American president of color and Muslim heritage made great mileage with our important ally when he said:

"The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them." To the billion-plus Muslims in the world, those words had to be heartfelt and a welcome acknowledgement.

As an American, I am proud when our president does well overseas. Being humble worked much better than being cocky. But in order to lead, you must be tough. Being liked is important. Being respected will be the test. The president had a great opening round, but there are many more rounds to fight.

So welcome home, Mr. President. The financial mess is still here. Enjoy the Easter Egg roll on the South Lawn this weekend. And know that the decisions you make in the coming weeks and months will be all about those kids playing on your back lawn -- and every other child in America.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 11:22 AM

Amos,

"Snark, snipe, complain, sarcasticize."

Hardly a valid comment for YOU to make.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 11:08 AM

Snark, snipe, complain, sarcasticize.

Bruce: Your article conveniently omits what proportion of the income stream these people have.

A 33K grocer makes 1/10 of what a 330K director makes, and 1/100th of what a 3.3M super-CEO may make. Yet the super-CEO may pay a tax rate less than twice that of the grocer.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 10:38 AM

Who Pays Taxes
The super-rich can't plug the budget gap on their own.

Friday, April 10, 2009; Page A16

THE CONGRESSIONAL Budget Office recently released some details of U.S. tax liabilities that should dispel myths on both sides of the budget debate. The numbers will be particularly useful in informing the discussion when tax increases for households other than the super-rich are finally on the table -- and like it or not, once the economy has recovered, they will be.

In 2006, the top 20 percent of earners paid 70 percent of all federal taxes. On average, they paid 26 percent of their income to the government. The very richest -- the top 1 percent of taxpayers, with household incomes of over $332,000 -- paid 28 percent of all taxes, with an effective tax rate of 31 percent. The middle three quintiles paid rates of 10, 14 and 18 percent. The lowest 20 percent of households paid only 0.8 percent of all federal taxes -- and the bottom 90 percent of households paid only 45 percent.

Based on these numbers, it would be hard to argue that the country doesn't already have a significantly progressive tax system. Taxes aren't just for suckers, with cashiers paying more of their income than corporate chief executives. Nor is the system egregiously stacked against the wealthy -- who, after all, receive the bulk of the income. The top quintile earned over 55 percent of the income, and the top 1 percent earned a full 19 percent of all income.

This matters because the simple truth is that in the coming years, taxes will have to go up to help close the government's gaping fiscal hole. Much of the budget gap should be covered by spending cuts, but judging from recent budget proposals by both parties, neither has an appetite for reductions anywhere near what will be needed.


When taxes go up, they should be increased in a way that makes the tax code more progressive. Income inequality has widened for the past three decades, and it only makes sense for those who have benefited to pay more. But there is a limit to how much the tippy top should bear. President Obama has promised that taxes will not be increased for families making under $250,000. That is a promise that will probably have to be dropped down the road. There just isn't enough revenue to be found above that figure unless we create a system so lopsided that voters would always want more government spending because it would come at such a low price.

The commonly used political definition of "rich" has crept up in recent years from $100,000 to $250,000. Either that definition is going to have to change again, or we will have to come to terms with the fact that the middle class will have to face higher tax burdens, too.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 07:32 PM

Rig, ..I thought appointing a Tax Cheat to head the treasury was not only 'innovative' it was a downright parody of itself!! something you'd see on 'Monty Python', or 'Black Adder'!!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 10:55 AM

I would agree that solutions to the world financail crisis will need innovative policies, but the people now in place to deal with it do not seem to be innovative people. It's seems to me that the president needs to broaden his search for personnel to fill some of the vacancies in Treasury.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:50 PM

"    Obama is popular because of his charisma, and also because of his policies.

Barack Obama's trip in Europe went very well. In France particularly, he is more popular than President Sarkozy. For many here, he is practically considered the leader of the opposition, which has become so feeble in terms of ideas and leadership.

The policies Mr. Obama has implemented since his election are an alternative to Mr. Sarkozy's policies, which are perceived here as being too favorable to the wealthy. The reaction to President Obama is a resumption of a love relationship, which existed during the Clinton presidency and was interrupted during George W. Bush's time in the White House. The fact is (some Americans may find this difficult to believe) the French like Americans, and have for a long time. Most just didn't like Mr. Bush.


Still, Barack Obama's popularity goes well beyond that of Bill Clinton's. Bill Clinton was popular because of his charisma, not for his policies. Mr. Obama is popular because of his charisma, his way of speaking to the citizens of the world — but also because of his policies, because of the way he is grappling with the financial and economic crisis.

The extent of the current crisis (and the reorganization of the world financial system it will imply), its consequences (a huge rise in unemployment) and its context (an environmental revolution) together might well lead to the abolishing of the old divisions between a social democrat Europe and a free-market America.

Solutions to this world crisis will need common innovative policies, solidarity, but above all an intellectual frame (or script), which Barack Obama started to deliver during his trip. " (NYT, by a French columnist)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:16 PM

"ISTANBUL, April 7 -- President Obama closed out his eight-day tour of Europe and Turkey on Tuesday by reaching across cultural barriers -- meeting with Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, slipping off his shoes to tour a 400-year-old mosque and urging an audience of university students to "build new bridges instead of new walls" throughout the world.

"The world will be what you make of it," Obama said in the town hall-style meeting, where he emphasized, as he has in several earlier forums, the growing power of the world's youth to change politics and policies around the world..."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:36 AM

The most recent New York Times/CBS poll -- conducted during the president's overseas trip -- shows Obama with a 66% overall approval rating (his highest as president), 59% approving his handling of foreign policy, and 56% approving his handling of the economy. "By contrast," the New York Times writes, "just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls."

"Also, the number of people who said they thought the country was headed in the right direction jumped from 15 percent in mid-January, just before Mr. Obama took office, to 39 percent today, while the number who said it was headed in the wrong direction dropped to 53 percent from 79 percent. That is the highest percentage of Americans who said the country was headed in the right direction since 42 percent said so in February 2005, the second month of President George W. Bush's second term." (MSNBC)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:27 AM

More like ad homminy BB

Your objection is corny & irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:51 AM

Good to see your Magic Mirror is still working, Froggie...



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:46 AM

Greg F.

ad hominem.

No wonder you vote Democratic.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:35 AM

Gotcha, BB- the fact of the obvious bias of Mr Whalen is irrelevant.

No wonder you vote Republican.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:50 AM

"...The recent headlines about Lawrence Summers had it all wrong. They announced with an implied breathlessness that he earned around $8 million last year - much of it from the hedge fund D.E. Shaw. Here's what I would have written: "Man Takes More Than $7.9 Million Cut in Pay." Somewhere in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," the bible of shrinks, there should be an entry for "public servant." They are all, bless their hearts, a little nuts.

Mine, of course, is not an approach Screaming Cable TV takes to such people. They are all crooks, up to here - wherever "here" may be - in conflicts of interest and perks, and too dim to succeed in the vaunted private sector. But the truth is otherwise. There are, it turns out, successful people who would give up big bucks and much of their privacy to work for you and me. It's virtually un-American.

Summers is clearly one of these people. D.E. Shaw paid him $5.2 million last year to meet with important clients. In addition, he lent the firm his expertise as a crack economist and it, in turn, provided him with an idea of how a wildly successful hedge fund works. At the same time, Summers made around $2.7 million in speaking fees from other organizations and companies. He was, to use a technical (micro) economic term, on easy street.

Yet he chucked it all for an office on the street of broken dreams, Pennsylvania Ave. So did national security adviser James Jones, who was earning about $2 million a year. David Axelrod, who had been running public affairs firms before going into the White House, kissed away at least the $1.5 million he earned last year and sold his stake in his companies. Other members of the Obama team similarly unburdened themselves of excess wealth, spare time and privacy, proving that money is not everything.

This is the dirty little secret of Washington. I don't mean to characterize these or other administration aides as the functional equivalent of Trappist monks, since they enjoy the attention, the power and - above all - the action. They are doing something substantive, important - sometimes making life-or-death decisions. It is not a life without any compensation.

There are few among us who would take a multimillion-dollar pay cut. Yes, you could say, someone like Summers could make it back, but that's not really - or always - the case. Take Tom Daschle. Here was a man who was not trying to build a career. He is 61, and his career was largely behind him. Yet he was willing to give up a lucrative lobbying practice to go back into government as secretary of health and human services. It turns out he cared more about reforming health care than he did about building a fortune. He didn't make it into the cabinet, foiled by a humiliating spot of trouble about taxes.

In Ronald Reagan's famous formulation, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This statement, at the very heart of the so-called Reagan Revolution, denigrated government and the people in it. Reagan's statement withdrew John F. Kennedy's invitation to the intellectually gifted to come to Washington and see what they could do for their country. Reagan sent a different message. Government service is for the lame, the cautious. If you really want to do something for your country, shun Washington and make money.

It is to Barack Obama's immense credit that he has reversed Reagan's reversal. Washington crackles with people on a mission. Brains are once again back in vogue if only because Obama has them in abundance. Not for him the aw-shucks affectation of the previous eight years, when instinct was extolled and ideology trumped analysis. We are in a mess, and one of the reasons is that people who might have noticed or done something about it had been told to stay out of government."

R. Cohen in the Daily News

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:22 AM

"The pride among African Americans in having one of our own as president is understandable. As Gene Robinson noted in his column last week, it just makes you feel good to see him not only represent you as a black American, but also represent the United States of America as he's done in Europe. But it does him no good and does the nation a disservice if he is not made to answer tough questions about his policies and decisions. Black reporters fought hard to get into positions from which they can hold the president to account. That cannot change now that the president himself is black. "


article

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:48 AM

Yes, We Can . . . Disarm?
Obama's Quixotic Rallying Cry for the World

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; Page A23

It is no fun to be the one who rains on the parade, and, if nothing else, President Obama's trip to Europe has been quite a parade. Or maybe "sold-out concert tour" is the better metaphor. There was a jolly town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France; a wonderful encounter between Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni, spectacular street scenes in Prague. The world's statesmen fell over themselves to be photographed with the American president. During one photo session, the Italian prime minister, Sylvio Berlusconi, howled so loudly for Obama's attention, that the queen of England was visibly unamused. ("Why does he have to shout?" she declared.)

Still, someone has to say it: Although some things went well on this trip, some things went badly. The centerpiece of the visit, Obama's keynote foreign policy speech in Prague -- leaked in advance, billed as a major statement -- was, to put it bluntly, peculiar. He used it to call for "a world without nuclear weapons" and a new series of arms control negotiations with Russia. This was not wrong, necessarily, and not evil. But it was strange.

Clearly, the "no nukes" policy is one close to the president's heart. The Prague speech even carried echoes of that most famous of all Obama speeches, the one he made after losing the New Hampshire primary. "There are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible," he told his Czech audience. (Recall: "We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics.") "When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens," he continued. ("We are not as divided as our politics suggests.") He didn't say "Yes, we can" at the end, but he did say "human destiny will be what we make of it" -- which amounts to the same thing.

The rhetoric was Obama's -- and so was the idea. Look at his record: One of the few foreign policy initiatives to which Obama stuck his name during his brief Senate term was an increase in funding for nuclear nonproliferation. One of the few trips Obama managed as a senator was a nuclear inspection tour of Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

Which is all very nice -- but as the central plank in an American president's foreign policy, a call for universal nuclear disarmament seems rather beside the point. Apparently, Obama's intention is to lead by example: If the United States cuts its own nuclear arsenal and bans testing, then, allegedly, others will follow.

Yet there is no evidence that U.S. nuclear arms reductions have ever inspired others to do the same. All of the world's more recent nuclear powers -- Israel, India, Pakistan -- acquired their weapons well after such talks began, more than 40 years ago.

As for the North Koreans, they chose the very day of the Prague speech to launch (unsuccessfully) an experimental missile. In its wake, neither China nor Russia wanted to condemn the launch, since doing so might set a precedent that would be uncomfortable for them. "Every state has the right to the peaceful use of outer space," said a Russian envoy to the United Nations. His government does want arms reduction talks, but only because its nuclear arsenal is rapidly deteriorating. By agreeing to start them, we've unnecessarily handed Moscow a bargaining chip.

More to the point, nuclear weapons, while terrifying in the abstract, are not an immediate strategic threat to Europe or the United States -- even from Iran. Biological weapons are potentially more lethal. Chemical weapons are far cheaper to produce. Within the United States, ordinary bombs and rogue airplanes have already caused plenty of damage.

Conventional weapons, meanwhile, have not gone out of fashion. The most recent use of military force in Europe -- the Russian-Georgian conflict last August -- involved tanks and infantry, not nukes. Even if Russia sold its remaining nuclear weapons for scrap metal, its military would still pose a threat to the country's neighbors, just as a China without nukes could still invade Taiwan.

In other words, ridding the world of nuclear weapons would be very nice, but on its own it won't alter the international balance of power, stop al-Qaeda or prevent large authoritarian states from invading their smaller neighbors. However unsuccessful the promotion of democracy has been, it is, ultimately, the only way to achieve these goals. Plus I'm not sure the French, however much they loved Michelle's flowery dress, have much interest in giving up their force de frappe. Ditto the British. And since they don't pose a threat, to us or anyone else, it's not clear why we should waste diplomatic capital trying to make them do so.

It could be, of course, that the Prague speech represented a holding pattern: Obama will talk about "no nukes" until he finds a more satisfying idea on which to hang his foreign policy. And if not, all of that goodwill, so much in evidence last week, might well go to waste.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:46 AM

So, Obama has moved us from 1933 to 1939.....




A World Without Nukes -- Just Like 1939

By William Kristol
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; Page A23

In Prague on Sunday, President Obama committed his administration to putting us on a "trajectory" toward "a world without nuclear weapons."

Of course, we had a world without nuclear weapons not so long ago -- say, in 1939. The war that began in that nuclear-free world led to a crash project to develop nuclear weapons. It ended with America's use of them -- something Obama alluded to: "As a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act."

It is not clear whether this statement implies disapproval of our use of nuclear weapons in 1945. It's telling, however, that Obama never referred in his Prague speech to the Second World War. Instead, he called the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War." This framework makes it possible to think of the elimination of nuclear weapons as a logical response to the end of that conflict: "Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not."

Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama would really have to envision is a world without war, or without threats of war. That's an ancient vision. It's one reason American presidents have tried to encourage the spread of liberal democracy and responsible regimes around the world.

Of course, there are all kinds of practical things we can do about the nuclear problem -- seek agreements to regulate the deployment of nuclear weapons, reduce their number and limit their production, regulate the export of nuclear materials, secure vulnerable nuclear material, and the like. We should pursue such agreements as long as they are sensible, verifiable and enforceable, as long as they promote stability and reduce the risk of war.

But we have a long way to go before achieving a world of pacific liberal regimes. George W. Bush's hope for a world without tyranny is the necessary -- though perhaps still not the sufficient -- precondition to a world without nuclear weapons. The danger is that the allure of a world without nuclear weapons can be a distraction -- even an excuse for not acting against real nuclear threats.

Consider Obama's speech. Referring to North Korea, which a few hours earlier had taken a break from six-party talks to test a rocket that could be used for long-range missiles, Obama said: "Now is the time for a strong international response. . . . All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

In other words: We'll all huff and puff about North Korea, and standing shoulder to shoulder we can pat ourselves on the back for our commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. In the meantime, the United States will do nothing to destroy North Korea's nuclear or missile capability, or to topple its political regime.

Obama also addressed Iran, saying that country's "nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat," which justifies some (limited) missile defense efforts in Europe. But Obama's real hope is for dialogue with Iran, in which he will present the regime with "a clear choice":

"We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all."

Obviously, Obama recommends the first path. But notice what he didn't do:

He didn't say that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime is unacceptable. He didn't express a commitment to preventing such an outcome, or confidence that the United States and international community would prevent such an outcome. He simply suggested that it wouldn't be optimal for Iran to choose that outcome. And if the rulers of the Islamic republic disagree? In the very speech in which Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, he weakened America's stand against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear- and missile-capable North Korea and Iran -- and a far more dangerous world.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 07:28 PM

Rig:

Was that brainless remark devoid of meaning altogether? Or just so inept as to be totally obscure?

Why do you not speak plainly, say what you mean, and try to communicate instead of just slanging?


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 06:11 PM

"Popular Views: the Obama Administration..."


                         YIKES!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:41 PM

There is a clear and simple reason: Bush was consistently self-serving, secretive, deceptive, and incoherent in his communications. Obama has consistently been the opposite, as far as I've seen so far.

I see no reason to assume these guys", whoever you are counting into that generality, are "crooks", GfS. What specific acts of crookedness are you pointing to here? By whom?

And your assessment of what the facts support or do not seems to be just as skewed, Bruce, as you imply mine to be.

And, GfS, just to make it clear, the above raves came from European reporters; my comments are just the one-liners at the end.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

....and during the Bush administration, the conservatives, who he pandered to, were pissed off, that he(Bush) was being way to liberal!! I'm telling you, it's a big fake show!! The agenda has been hidden for so long..I think with Obama, they feel safe for it to surface, and show its ugly head!....only for us to demand, 'More, more More!!' Stupid media raised, nonthinking, consumers of more than you make! Forget it...its OVER!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT????? Do you actually think this is to re-capture your old consumer habits, AND enjoy the luxury, of being free??? You think this is going to 'build' ON your existing 'lifestyle', that you've taken for granted, for so long???? These guys are out front crooks!!! Obama is the smooth front man....his administration is Clinton's..who is political buddies with Bush!! BIG FUCKING CHANGE!!!! Oh, well....you can lead a horse to water, but you can make him play a banjo!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:06 PM

"but in general the Republican forces during the Bush regime were much more monolithic and ditto-headed than Democrats seem to be, IMHO"


That may certainly have been your opinion, but the facts do not support you. It seems to me ( and perhaps others here) that the present Obama supporters are at least as monlithic and ditto-headed, as well as being hypocritical, and applying a standard to Obama that they denied to Bush.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:36 PM

Amos, ..you must save a lot, from not watching any porno..You get so hot, watching Obama on the news!...You're drooling, again!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:17 PM

"It is gratifying to see that good work has been done here," Obama began. "Ten, 20, 30 years ago, it was not a matter of course that countries which were traditionally enemies solved problems together. After the Great Depression, a similar group did not convene until 1944. Also in 1982, following the Mexico Crisis, it took seven years before the problems were tackled together." Now he spoke with urgency: "It is important that we do not sell short the results of this summit. The press would like us to have conflicts. Instead we have attained great achievements. And it is important that we exude confidence."

He then lowered his voice: "It is true, as my Italian friend has said, that the crisis began in the US. I take responsibility, even if I wasn't even president at the time." And he underscored how important it is for him "that we now genuinely make progress. Thank you." Applause.

The others couldn't believe their ears. Was that really a confession of guilt from the US? Was it a translation error, or at least an inaccuracy? Afterwards, this sentence fueled long discussions among the members of the German delegation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was so impressed by Obama's statement that she rushed to tell her finance minister, Peer Steinbrück. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso reacted immediately: The proposal to hold the next summit not in Japan, but rather in the US, is something that he no longer rejects, he says, "now that the US has shouldered responsibility."

Obama's confession may go down in world history as one of the greatest statements ever made. The US president is accepting responsibility for the beginning of one of the worst economic crises of the last century. By doing so, he has admitted that one of the excesses of the American way of life -- the insatiable craving for huge profits -- has brought the world to the brink of disaster. The others may have played their part, but the origins lie in the US. The fact that Obama has now admitted this sends a strong signal of hope to the world, perhaps the strongest to emerge from the G-20 summit in London last Wednesday and Thursday. Such an admission could begin to pave the way towards rectifying the situation...."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:13 PM

Obama Saves NATO Governments from Summit Shame

By Matthias Gebauer (der SPIEGEL)

A call made by Barack Obama helped end the impasse. The Turkish government has given up its opposition and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen will now become the new head of NATO. By doing so, Obama saved Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy from deep embarrassment at the summit.

Delays in the agenda are part of the routine at NATO summits. When it comes to ending them, though, countries tend to be very punctual. By the last day, most are keen to return home and meetings are shortened and important issues sometimes delayed until the next summit.

On Saturday, though, the decision to be made was too important -- and the summit was forced to go into overtime. Instead of holding a joint press conference at 1 p.m. as originally planned, Secretary General Japp de Hoop Scheffer was only able to appear before journalists after a two-and-a-half hour delay. It was easy to guess what he was going to say, too, given that has successor, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was already standing next to him.

Presidents Sarkozy and Obama with Chancellor Merkel in Strasbourg: The French and German leaders owe a debt to the new American leader.
AFP

Presidents Sarkozy and Obama with Chancellor Merkel in Strasbourg: The French and German leaders owe a debt to the new American leader.

Scheffer and Fogh Rasmussen both beamed from the stage. Scheffer said he was proud. Fogh Rasmussen congratulated his predecessor on his work. A short time later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy also joined in. Sarkozy grinned broadly and could hardly contain his excitement. For her part, Merkel smiled a bit more reservedly.

The reactions underscored what a tour de force NATO had just undergone. By Friday evening, when Turkey repeated its threat to veto any decision to appoint Fogh Rasmussen as the next secretary general, it became clear that a NATO summit being held to celebrate its 60th anniversary threatened to end in fiasco. "

---

It's nice to see the American voice serving to improve international relations rather than worsen them.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:25 PM

THe issue of Holder and OLC is debatabler in my opinion, but if Holder abused the process in fact, rather than just in someone's opinion, then he should not have done, and he should answer for it just as plainly as anyone has to.

The reason the bill could be said to be constitutional is that the Constitution gives Congress complete power over the District, which would include granting it representation. The counter-argument is that the Constitution does give representation to the several States, of which D.C. is not one.

I may have spoken with excessive energy in the heat of battling the right wing's attacks on the Constitution in much more far-reaching ways, but in general the Republican forces during the Bush regime were much more monolithic and ditto-headed than Democrats seem to be, IMHO. They were tightly briefed on talking points and discouraged from exceeding that line.

THis is, of course a general impression, and I am not going to dig into those awful years to find the reports from which my impressions are drawn. So feel free to ignore it! :D


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:29 AM

Bruce, you've done good!! This thing is huge....and all one can do is point to the 'lesser', more obvious things, which are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:20 AM

"There is probably no statement you can make decrying the habits of "all Democrats" that could conceivably be called a fact. They tend to be a varied lot."

And you made many of them, talking about Republicans...

It seems that when a member of the Obama administration does what you claim was impeachable ( to Bush) you find it to be justified- when you said that there could be no justification for the act.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:03 AM

Amos,

I know you rread the article, right?

"In the course of its usual task of reviewing pending legislation to identify constitutional problems, OLC determined that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. The acting head of OLC, David Barron -- a liberal Harvard law professor appointed by Holder -- signed an opinion setting forth OLC's conclusion. That conclusion is no surprise, as it has been the Department of Justice's consistent position, under presidents of both parties, at least as far back as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 and as recently as two years ago.

When Holder, a longtime supporter of the voting rights bill, learned of the OLC determination, he acted to override it. He contacted another of his appointees, deputy solicitor general Neal K. Katyal, to ask whether Katyal's office could, under its usual standards, defend the bill in court. Katyal said it could, and Holder then overruled OLC.

Now, it's legitimate, if exceedingly rare, for an attorney general to contest OLC's advice. The office is, after all, exercising the advisory function the attorney general has delegated to it. But there's a right way to overrule OLC, and then there's Holder's way. The right way would have been for Holder to conduct a full and careful formal review of the legal question. If that review yielded the conclusion that Holder's position was in fact the best reading of the law -- an extremely unlikely conclusion, in my judgment -- then Holder would sign a written opinion to that effect.

Holder instead adopted a sham review that abused OLC's institutional role. In particular, the answer he solicited and received from Katyal was virtually meaningless. Holder didn't ask for Katyal's best judgment as to whether the D.C. bill was constitutional. He instead asked merely whether his own position that the bill is constitutional was so beyond the pale, so beneath the low level of plausible lawyers' arguments, so legally frivolous, that the Solicitor General's office, under its traditional commitment to defend any federal law for which any reasonable defense can be offered, wouldn't be able to defend it in court.

Holder hasn't signed an opinion setting forth his grounds for reversing OLC, and he also refuses to make the OLC opinion available.

To test whether your own politics color your perception of Holder's action, consider this hypothetical: It's 2001, and pro-life Republicans in Congress introduce a bill that would purport to overturn Roe v. Wade by declaring that the unborn are "persons" under the 14th Amendment. The Bush administration official heading OLC issues an opinion, consistent with the longstanding position of the Justice Department, that the bill is unconstitutional. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft consults with a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office, who tells him that the office could defend the bill in court. Ashcroft informs OLC that he is overriding its opinion. Wouldn't there be ample reason to be alarmed that Ashcroft was politicizing DOJ's legal positions? Can you imagine the ensuing scandal?

Of course, Ashcroft never did anything like what Holder has done. "

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:28 AM

IF a hominem makes a groundless sweeping generalization about a large class of individuals and presents it as a fact, the hominem should be subtracted from the conversation.

There is probably no statement you can make decrying the habits of "all Democrats" that could conceivably be called a fact. They tend to be a varied lot.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:55 AM

ad hominem, GregF.

If you can't address the facts presented, you have no arguement at all.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:50 AM

Right- impartial observer Ed Whalen, author of such statements as

"...Democrats have displayed no real interest in judicial ethics but instead seek to use ethics charges as a partisan club against President Bush's judicial nominees..."

head honcho at the Ethics and Public Policy Center "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy" & poo-bah at the National Review.

Equating Holder's actions with Ashcroft's is simply absurd.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:10 AM

Look Who's Politicizing Justice Now

By Edward Whelan
Sunday, April 5, 2009; Page B03

Intense controversy has flared in recent years over a previously obscure but high-powered office in the Department of Justice -- the Office of Legal Counsel. OLC has traditionally provided the final word to executive branch officials on the meaning of the Constitution and federal statutes. Disputes over whether it faithfully carried out its assigned role in national security matters during the Bush administration have erupted on newspaper front pages. Whatever the merits of those disputes, virtually everyone has agreed that it is imperative that OLC provide high-quality legal advice that is not slanted to advance a president's policy agenda -- and that the president and his top advisers respect that advice.

But now it appears that we have an attorney general who is himself running roughshod over OLC.

During Eric Holder's confirmation process, his tenure as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration sparked serious concerns among senators. In scandals involving Clinton's pardons of Puerto Rican nationalists and fugitive Marc Rich, Holder had violated departmental protocols, ignored the views of victims and law enforcement professionals, colluded with Rich's attorneys, undermined prosecutors and circumvented DOJ's pardon attorney. A congressional investigation in 2002 called his conduct "unconscionable."


At his recent confirmation hearing, a chastened Holder assured senators that he had learned from the past and was committed to upholding the department's high standards. He specifically promised not to politicize DOJ's legal positions: "We don't change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over," he said. Any review "will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law."

Alas, less than two months into his tenure as attorney general, according to accounts in The Post last week, Holder has abused OLC for partisan political purposes. The facts, admittedly, are somewhat sketchy -- largely because Holder isn't complying with President Obama's promise of transparency. But here's what they show.

In the course of its usual task of reviewing pending legislation to identify constitutional problems, OLC determined that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. The acting head of OLC, David Barron -- a liberal Harvard law professor appointed by Holder -- signed an opinion setting forth OLC's conclusion. That conclusion is no surprise, as it has been the Department of Justice's consistent position, under presidents of both parties, at least as far back as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 and as recently as two years ago.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040302835.html?hpid=opinionsbox1





Alas, less than two months into his tenure as attorney general, according to accounts in The Post last week, Holder has abused OLC for partisan political purposes. The facts, admittedly, are somewhat sketchy -- largely because Holder isn't complying with President Obama's promise of transparency. But here's what they show.

In the course of its usual task of reviewing pending legislation to identify constitutional problems, OLC determined that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. The acting head of OLC, David Barron -- a liberal Harvard law professor appointed by Holder -- signed an opinion setting forth OLC's conclusion. That conclusion is no surprise, as it has been the Department of Justice's consistent position, under presidents of both parties, at least as far back as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 and as recently as two years ago.

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: number 6
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 03:59 PM

"Now that America can't put everyone under its thumb, a thumbs-up and a killer smile can go a long way.."

It sure can!

smile

smile 2

and finally smile 3

"Smile though your heart is aching
Smile even though its breaking
When there are clouds in the sky, youll get by
If you smile through your fear and sorrow
Smile and maybe tomorrow
Youll see the sun come shining through for you"

biLL

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 03:29 PM

Well, America has long been producing really great stuff...even out classing a lot of Europe!(Not to mention a lot of the rest of the world!) You want bullshit, at the G20, wait till they get a load of this guy!!! Obama going over their completely outclasses even their own! Look how he is head and shoulders above them!Once again, we've outclassed them! His ability to bullshit them, and have them adore him, while he's doing it!!!! Yes, Get a load of this!
P.S. Amos, Sometimes you've just gotta be proud to be an American!!!!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:07 AM

Maureen Dowwd, referring to Obama as "First Shrink", draws an interesting contrast between him and his predecessor on their diplomatic sensibilities:

"...Bush and his inner circle were extraordinarily obtuse about reading the motivations and the intentions of friends and foes.

How could it never occur to them that Saddam Hussein might simply be bluffing about the size of his W.M.D. arsenal to keep the Iranians and other antagonists at bay?

W. bristled at French and German leaders because he thought they were condescending to him. He thought he saw into Vladimir Putin's soul until the Russian leader showed his totalitarian stripes.

W. and Condi were so clueless about the mind-set of Palestinians that Condi was blindsided by the Hamas victory in 2006, learning the news from TV as she did the elliptical at 5 a.m. in the gym of her Watergate apartment.

The Bush chuckleheads misread the world and insisted that everyone else go along with their deluded perception, and they bullied the world and got huffy if the world didn't quickly fall in line.

President Obama, by contrast, employed smart psychology in the global club, even on small things, like asking other leaders if they wanted to start talking first at news conferences.

With Anglo-American capitalism on trial and Gordon Brown floundering in the polls, Mr. Obama took pains to drape an arm around "Gordon" and return to using the phrase "special relationship." He gave a shout-out to the Brown kids, saying he'd talked dinosaurs with them. He won points with a prickly Sarkozy when he intervened in an argument about tax havens between the French and Chinese leaders, pulling them into a corner to help them "get this all in some kind of perspective" and find a middle ground. Mr. Obama also played to the ego of the Napoleonic French leader, saying at their press conference, "He's courageous on so many fronts, it's hard to keep up."

Soon Sarko was back gushing over his charmant Americain ami.

Having an Iowa-style town hall in Strasbourg with enthusiastic French and German students was a clever ploy to underscore his popularity on the world stage, and put European leaders on notice that many of their constituents are also his.

Like a good shrink, the president listens; it's a way of flattering his subjects and sussing them out without having to fathom what's in their soul. "It is easy to talk to him," Dmitri Medvedev said after their meeting. "He can listen." The Russian president called the American one "my new comrade."

Mr. Obama, the least silly of men, was even willing to mug for a silly Facebook-ready picture, grinning and giving a thumbs-up with Medvedev and a goofy-looking Silvio Berlusconi.

Now that America can't put everyone under its thumb, a thumbs-up and a killer smile can go a long way...."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:59 AM

Thomas Friedman of the Times offers an interesting analysis of what Obama is doing.

HIs thesis:

"While campaigning for the presidency in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt gave a commencement address on May 22 at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta that probably describes President Obama's strategy today — and the big bet he has made — as well as anything could.

"The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation," said Roosevelt. "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

When you total up all the emergency economic policies that Mr. Obama has now put in place — a nearly $800 billion stimulus, mortgage relief, a private-public program for buying up toxic assets and a huge capital injection into the banking system by the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and expand credit — they constitute one big experiment."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:30 AM

A French correspondent writes in the NYT:

":...Envy is a complex passion. It engenders both love and hate. Many French intellectuals hate Barack Obama because they feel that too many people adore him, and with too much ardor. But by and large, the optimism and excitement that the majority of French people felt during Mr. Obama's presidential campaign and at the moment he was elected have not diminished.

We had a chance to appreciate Mr. Obama's spirit of cooperation with Europe at the G-20 summit meeting. It came almost as a surprise, for we are no longer accustomed to such things after years of George W. Bush's isolationism. Mr. Obama's position on Iran has provoked a more-than-favorable reaction all across Europe, and particularly in France, and nothing seems to be clouding the blue skies of the old continent's love story with President Obama. Mr. Obama's anger is portrayed here as something holy. And when he laughs, we laugh.

When our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, gets angry, on the other hand, we laugh. When he laughs, we wonder why. We feel that Mr. Obama confers dignity on his country and its people. We, too, would sorely like to feel dignified."

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 06:53 PM

Shit Amos! I almost trust you..because you ARE S-O-O-O corrupted!..Just check out you political slant...(wink!)

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:13 PM

Hell, I wouldn't have trusted him if he were corruption free... ;>)



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:18 PM

Agreed. Also the public's greed as well. Hey, you weren't trying to paint Clinton as corruption free, were you?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:14 PM

The pressure may have accelerated the corruption by presenting an irresistible opportunity, but the blind ambition and greed of the actual managers and sales personnel is what built the thing into insane porportions. The mortgages themselves were bad enough, but then they were sliced and diced into complex debt packages that were sold as safe instruments with good ratings when they were rotten.

A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:06 PM

Amos, there you are in error. Clinton pressured the mortgage bankers, and Freddie and Fannie to make easy credit to those who could not afford it..and you know that!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:04 PM

There is no single case that describes "credit" anymore than there is a war on "terror". These are conditions, not individuals.

The present economic downturn has developed from a corruption of a major credit market such that the major institutions of credit have gone haywire. This is not a reflection on credit, but on its abuse.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 01:59 PM

Amos..I agree with you!..That being said, do you think that that has, or is the case now?

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 01:42 PM

Meanwhile, CREDIT is a way, to be controlled into slavery..either by corporations, or government 'programs'!

And eating is a way to die, if you are stupid about it. Well-managed credit is a path toward growth and without it we would not have rail lines, hot and cold water systems, highways, sewers, electrical grids or large buildings.

Credit doesn't enslave people. People enslave people--often themselves.



A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 12:40 PM

Too much control, either religious, or political, is both destructive, and delusional. So, if I may again reference someone, that seems to get everyone's knickers in a twist..."Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, (religious leaders), and Caesar(Political)."..Jesus of Nazareth. They are the blind, leading the blind! The founding Fathers of this country were certainly aware of this, and formed a government, which limited CONTROL, or being CONTROLLED, by either one!! How this escapes those who claim to be the 'astute' is mind boggling! It is not a matter of right vs. left, Rebulicats or Democans...they are both part and parcel of government control. Same as Capitalists, Communists, Fascists, Socialists, and the rest!!! True Freedom, and Liberty, have very little to do with these agents of control...Meanwhile, CREDIT is a way, to be controlled into slavery..either by corporations, or government 'programs'! Right now we are seeing us sold into debt(slavery), without ANY SAY, whatsoever!..Whereas, that is being entered into a contract, without consent,(coercion), it is high time we take a closer look, and maybe re-think all this nonsense going on! Fortunately, this 'administration' isn't about that! They are so corrupt, I don't think they even care to regard any of those factors, except using a crisis, to con the public!..That being said, I'm still giving Obama, the benefit of the doubt, because he is more of a political animal, than the others, I believe..and the others are using him as a smooth talking front man, and hiding behind him. Just ask Axelrod, or Rahm. Time not only will tell, but the obvious will be written off, by the blind followers, and explained away, enough to where THEY feel comfortable...even if they aren't fooling, or convincing anyone, but themselves!! You too!
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 12:15 PM

A new thread on "if it is political then it must be delusional" might be in order just for you I am sure that some of the members of his administration match your criteria, but I don't think as a group they do.


A

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 11:28 AM

600! My assessment of his ADMINISTRATION is still the same...a buch of cheats and swindlers, hiding behind the 'nobility' of a political, patriotic, cover!

Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 10:28 AM

"Carville is known to be a registered Democrat and Obama supporter."

               The intense light reflecting off Carville's head has been known to blind people from the facts.