Obama Is Looking Out Of His Depth
The Economist's Edward Lucas writes in the Telegraph/UK what I've long felt about Barack Obama -- that being an eloquent, brainy and likeable man with a fascinating biography and not being George Bush is not qualification enough to be president -- and that's beginning to become apparent to all or many. Obama gives a great speech, and then, when the speechifying's done...there's really no there there:
Regimes in Moscow, Pyongyang and Tehran simply pocket his concessions and carry on as before. The picture emerging from the White House is a disturbing one, of timidity, clumsiness and short-term calculation. Some say he is the weakest president since Jimmy Carter.The grizzled veterans of the Democratic leadership in Congress have found Mr Obama and his team of bright young advisers a pushover. That has gravely weakened his flagship domestic campaign, for health-care reform, which fails to address the greatest weakness of the American system: its inflated costs. His free trade credentials are increasingly tarnished too. His latest blunder is imposing tariffs on tyre imports from China, in the hope of gaining a little more union support for health care. But at a time when America's leadership in global economic matters has never been more vital, that is a dreadful move, hugely undermining its ability to stop other countries engaging in a ruinous spiral of protectionism.
...The President's domestic critics who accuse him of being the sinister wielder of a socialist master-plan are wide of the mark. The man who has run nothing more demanding than the Harvard Law Review is beginning to look out of his depth in the world's top job. His credibility is seeping away, and it will require concrete achievements rather than more soaring oratory to recover it.
Were you fooled? Did you want to believe in "hope for change"? Me? I hope for as little change as humanly possible. I also think Obama's inexperience was best shown in how he decided to rush-rush "reform" health care, and when the economy is such a mess, and should have been job one and then some.
Obama has never run anything (if I were mean, I'd add "except his mouth," but not being mean, I won't)////not a small business, not a small town or a government agency, not an infantry company or warship. There are literally millions of Americans with more management and leadership experience than he has.
Being an executive is hard work, at least it is if you actually care about delivering results. An Ivy League degree does not automatically qualify someone of this role.
david foster at September 21, 2009 8:56 AM
"Regimes in Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran simply pocket his concessions and carry on. The picture emerging from the White House is a disturbing one, of timidity, clumsiness..."
For photographic evidence of this, please look here:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/spot-the-alpha-big-face-edition/
Keep in mind that this photo was taken in Moscow two months before the latest round of appeasement regarding missile defense in the Czech Republic & Poland.
Martin (Ontario) at September 21, 2009 8:57 AM
> Obama has never run anything
Nor has he ever generated wealth. Throughout his life, when the time came to bring money into his venture, he got on the phone and asked somebody for it.
Nice ears, though. The missus? Great arms.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 21, 2009 8:59 AM
PS - And that money, from the phone call? It almost never came from the person who sent it over.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 21, 2009 9:01 AM
Is there a single person for whom being President wouldn't be "out of their depth"? Bush has been out of his depth in literally every situation he's ever been in for his entire life. And Republicans seem aghast that he turned into such a miserable failure as POTUS. Uh, that would be because he's been a failure at everything he's ever attempted in his entire life. You were expecting something different?
There is no preparatory school for having the access codes in this country. I know of no one who would be prepared for the office of the presidency
Patrick at September 21, 2009 9:03 AM
While there is no job that can train one in the exact situations one will face as president, having executive-level experience gives one preparation and experience in a pressure-cooker.
It gives one some experience sitting at a desk at which one cannot vote "present" and let someone else handle things.
Obama has never had that experience. He's still trying to vote "present" as president and it isn't working.
Most recent presidents have had some kind of executive experience before becoming president. Reagan was governor of California. GHW Bush ran an oil company, the US Consulate in China, and the CIA. Clinton was governor of Arkansas for two terms. GW Bush was head of an oil company, head of a baseball team, and governor of Texas.
And, no, Patrick, GW Bush was not a failure at everything he tried. He kept his oil company afoat during a time when most small oil companies were failing. He turned the Texas Rangers back into a viable baseball team (eventually selling them for a profit). He worked with Democrats and Republicans as governor of Texas (garnering the highest re-election percentage of minority votes a Republican in Texas has had since Reconstruction. As president, he faced a hostile Congress and still got much of his legislation (not all of which I agreed with) passed.
Obama has a Congress overwhelmingly dominated by his own party and yet he can't get damned thing done.
Conan the Grammarian at September 21, 2009 9:20 AM
Obama has fumbled some; every new president does (I'm not sure if GHWB did, but he was the most professionally qualified man to ever hold the office).
But I think a lot of this piece is just another way of saying "I disagree with Obama's policies". As I've written before, most of what Obama has done – with the exception of some the measures associated with the economic collapse – is more or what the man ran on.
From what I've read, there's nothing Obama could do to make Amy or most of the readers of this blog think that the sort of health care reform he ran on is a good idea. Has he let Congress have too much control over that bill? Perhaps. But he also learned the lesson of the Clintons, which is that to dictate the reforms from the White House can lead to the alienation of your own party. In the end, he's likely to get bill passed that is substantively similar to the one he ran on. If so, this will be a success that has eluded every Democratic president and even some Republican ones (Nixon!) since, what, Truman?
Obama responded to the economic crisis by pushing through a massive Keynsian stimulus. There's some evidence it's working. By many indications, the recession is on its way to being over. Newspapers will still be in bad shape (sorry, Amy), but that's for reasons far beyond anything Obama has control over. If you don't believe in a Keynsian approach to an economic collapse, then you might think "he hasn't done enough on the economy", but what you really mean is "he hasn't done what I think is the right thing" on the economy.
"Regimes in Moscow, Pyongyang and Tehran simply pocket his concessions and carry on as before". This quote is silly. What are these supposed concessions, other than a willingness to talk to people? Which again, is basically what he ran on. There's no sea change in our policies toward Iran, Russia or North Korea, only a moderating of the rhetorical tone.
The man has failed in some things. The tire tariff and the GM and Chrysler bailouts were failures. So was his failure to close Gitmo. I'm not sure that doubling down on Afghanistan is worth it. I'd like to see him taking more measures to put the risks of banks' precarious balance sheets on their shareholders and bondholders rather than the government.
Expectations for Obama, especially among his supporters, were insanely high. And they were bound to end up in some disappointment. But a lot of the issue here is not Obama's fumbling and incompetence; it's that people disagree with him on substance. Which is a different thing entirely.
Whatever at September 21, 2009 9:20 AM
"I know of no one who would be prepared for the office of the presidency"
There are millions out there that would be better prepared than just about any President in modern history. But those characteristics are of no value to politicians.
Feebie at September 21, 2009 9:21 AM
The Economist on Obama's latest announcement:
"Evidence of a weak president being pushed leftward might cause investors to worry whether he will prove similarly feeble when it comes to reining in the vast deficits he is now racking up; and that might spook the buyers of bonds that finance all those deficits."
Won't that be nice to know when the bulk of the stimulus actually goes into effect in 2010?
Conan the Grammarian at September 21, 2009 9:28 AM
Won't that be nice to know when the bulk of the stimulus actually goes into effect in 2010?
Sure won't hurt Democrats' chances of keeping their congressional majorities.
Whatever at September 21, 2009 9:34 AM
Whatever - get your lips off Obama's ass, it's unbecoming.
The man is already the worst president we've ever had. Makes me long for the days of Carter.
Actually, there's no evidence of the sort. In fact, it's looking more like his "stimulus" is doing precisely what every other "stimulus" has ever done - delayed the recovery.
Cash for Clunkers? Epic Fail. Car sales for the month of September are at a 30 year low.
When are you people gonna get it through your head - John Maynard Keynes was wrong!
brian at September 21, 2009 9:56 AM
You don't get out much, do you? Obama's below 50% approval. Current trends indicate that the Democrats might maintain a razor-thin margin in the house. And we're still 13+ months out from the election.
And the economy isn't going to get better because the government can't stop fucking with it.
You might want to invest in popcorn futures, because I'm gonna be eating a lot of it watching the Democratic party implode.
brian at September 21, 2009 9:58 AM
Cynically, that's all it was ever really intended to do. The "stimulus" was not passed to stimulate the economy but to help Democrats keep their Congressional seats.
That's one reason why it has so much pork in it.
No, it's his fumbling and incompetence.
Obama's party controls overwhelmingly both houses of Congress. Yet he is continually running into roadblocks in passing "his" signature legislation.
If every Democrat voted for the healthcare bill and every Republican voted against it, it would pass with a solid majority. Yet, Obama cannot get it passed by his own party.
He keeps trying to open talks with Iran and keeps getting rebuffed and called "powerless" or "a puppet."
He doubled down on Afghanistan and the situation has gotten worse. Maybe not his fault, but the timing is inauspicious for his image right now.
Obama is flailing too much in both foreign policy and domestic policy right now.
He needs to own at least one venue in which he is seen as a strong and decisive player.
Many in his own party are afraid to back "his" signature domestic legislation.
He has hobbled his Secretary of State and appointed an intellectual lightweight as Secretary of the Treasury. His Secretary of Homeland Security is still trying to figure out what her job is. His head of the CIA is spending most of his time defending his agency from attacks by the president's own party.
And, even worse from a Democratic Party standpoint, he has hobbled his own party in terms of viable presidential candidates.
The most promising Democratic governors were inhumed into his Cabinet (Sebelius, Granholm) where they will hardly be able to run against him in 2012 and will be politically dead by 2016 if he is seen as a failure. Clinton might try in 2012 (she'll resign by 2010), but she's past her sell-by date. Biden's foot-in-mouth disease means he's political roadkill unless something happens to Obama and Biden proves to be a better president than vice president.
The good news for the Democrats is that the Republicans are not in much better shape. Sanford's meltdown took him out of contention. Palin is working on growing her stature on the national scene, but she's still got some work to do. Jindahl has disappeared after his lackluster performance in presenting the opposing viewpoint to the SotU. Pawlenty is beginning to gain some recognition, but most folks still ask "who?" when his name comes up. Michael Steele is more concerned with parsing Obama's words than with presenting policy alternatives. Gingrich is past his sell-by date. Romney still can't get by the evangelicals.
Conan the Grammarian at September 21, 2009 10:10 AM
Richard Epstein discusses Barack Obama
Richard Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1972. He was a colleague of Barack Obama when Obama taught as an instructor. Epstein had mutual friends with Obama, and talked to Obama about some issues. His main description is that Obama is under complete self-control
"Obama worked as a community organizer and was in many cases very constructive. He organized public/private partnerships to help the homeless and downtrodden."
"But, the difficulty you get, for someone who has only worked in that situation, is that he believes the creation of private wealth is something the government cannot influence or destroy. He has many fancy redistribution schemes, in addition to his health plan and new labor laws, which are all wealth killers."
AG: Obama doesn't worry about the economy because he sees it as a huge source of cash, and not something that can be helped or damaged. How wrong he is.
Andrew_M_Garland at September 21, 2009 10:39 AM
Obama and God
When God talks to you through your inner voice, it is even better than prayer. Obama experiences this every day, in his own words, revealed in a March 2004 interview with a reporter on religious issues. It may be good when a person declares their submision to God. It may be bad when he claims to have a daily conversation.
Andrew_M_Garland at September 21, 2009 10:40 AM
The Political Dictionary
Liberal Economics: Money falls from heaven for everyone to use. But, the immoral and sneaky rich gather more than their share. The government should then step in and redistribute the money the way God intended. Sorry, I mean the way Gaia, or the Tooth Fairy, or whoever intended.
Andrew_M_Garland at September 21, 2009 10:43 AM
"When God talks to you through your inner voice, it is even better than prayer. Obama experiences this every day, in his own words, revealed in a March 2004 interview with a reporter on religious issues. It may be good when a person declares their submision to God. It may be bad when he claims to have a daily conversation."
No *He* doesn't. Besides. If you are all screwed up in the head, you could just about say "God" said anything you wanted him too. No humility. This man is a monomaniacal ass.
Feebie at September 21, 2009 11:08 AM
sorry, meant meglamaniacal ass.
Feebie at September 21, 2009 11:10 AM
Freebie,
Right on both counts.
MarkD at September 21, 2009 11:26 AM
Patrick is trolling again.
Crusader at September 21, 2009 12:01 PM
Patrick thinks that Bush is still in office - what's that tell you?
Marko at September 21, 2009 1:46 PM
Oh please. Obama inherited a financial system in collapse, and a perma-war in Iraqistan, and he has been president less than a year.
The Bush Administration was a train wreck. Obama now at least has us back on the tracks. It will take some time--but he shows up for work, and has hired good people. They catually seem serious and circumspect about their work. Imagine.
I have 10 times the confidence in Obama than I had in Bush. Which is still not tons, but high enough.
i-holier-than-thou at September 21, 2009 1:54 PM
Crusader,
"Policing" the blog again, I see.
Rather than personal sniping, why don't you add something of substance to the conversation? For instance, you could articulate your basis of disagreement with Patrick, rather than just calling him names.
Just a suggestion ... .
Jay R at September 21, 2009 1:57 PM
If every Democrat voted for the healthcare bill and every Republican voted against it, it would pass with a solid majority. Yet, Obama cannot get it passed by his own party.
You forget that the Republicans in the the Senate filibuster pretty much every single bill that is proposed, which means you need 60 votes, not a majority. So, they Democrats have to unanimously vote together and keep their wobblies like Lieberman and Nelson and Baucus voting with them. And they're just not that disciplined (largely due to the feckless Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi sucks, too. That needs to be said as often as possible.). Whereas the Republicans are much better at sticking together.
Eventually, what they Democrats will do is pass the healthcare bill through reconciliation on a party-line vote while Republicans howl about it and some blue dog Democrats either vote against it or abstain. The reason they haven't done that yet is they keep hoping that they can get some political cover by getting Snowe or Collins to sign on. Something to be able to call the bill "bipartisan". But that won't happen.
whatever at September 21, 2009 2:01 PM
First, it was the Democrats who raised the filibuster to an art form.
Second, after Al Franken's swearing in and until Ted Kennedy's death, the Democrats had 60 votes.
And, since Massachusetts is determined to put a Dem into Ted's seat, they soon will again.
Huh?
Arlen Specter was saved in his last election by the intervention of GW Bush and almost immediately switched sides to become a Democrat.
And those Republicans from New England always vote the party line. Snowe and Collins are only called RINOs because of their nose jobs.
And McCain is so eager to cross the aisle, he's voted Democrat amost as often as he's voted Republican.
Exactly!
They're so underconfident in their own program that they want cover so that when the butcher's bill comes due (and they know it's coming), they can spread the blame.
Conan the Grammarian at September 21, 2009 2:46 PM
Oops. I meant Sebelius and Napolitano. Granholm is the governor of Michigan and she's politically dead due to her own incompetence, not Obama's.
Conan the Grammarian at September 21, 2009 3:05 PM
Now I know you're just fucking with us.
The bulk of his people are brute incompetents. He picked people who wouldn't make him look stupid. However, since he's got a room-temperature IQ that means he's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Granholm has no idea what her job at DHS entails. She's just sure it has nothing to do with the border.
Geithner doesn't know a damned thing about fiscal policy. Or how to pay his taxes.
Half of his appointees have or had tax problems. Bunches of them are radicals. And he still hasn't filled a bunch of positions that require senate confirmation, preferring to go for unvetted "advisors" like Van Jones instead.
But you continue living in your fantasy land where Obama's competent.
Obama makes me long for the cool, calm competence of George W. Bush.
brian at September 21, 2009 3:12 PM
They're so underconfident in their own program that they want cover so that when the butcher's bill comes due (and they know it's coming), they can spread the blame.
Obama wanted a bipartisan bill, so they gave that a shot. But I think it's pretty much been given up on at this point.
Whatever at September 21, 2009 3:41 PM
Then perhaps he should have actually talked to someone in the other party. Perhaps he could have even taken an interest in what's in the bill instead of farming the entire bill-crafting process out to Harry and Nancy.
You don't get a bipartisan bill by asking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to write it (excluding the other party during the process) and then expect someone in the other party to vote for it so you can call yourself "bipartisan."
Conan the Grammarian at September 21, 2009 3:51 PM
I see some people are still blinded by Obama's slick talking (all the while saying nothing). If you are so dumb you buy his bullshit, you do not deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us. Again, I would ask exactly what is "borken" in our health care system, and why it takes an 1100 page bill that nobody can understand to fix it. That is why I am against it, they are doing a shitty job of explaining it and are in way to big of a hurry to get something this massive passed.
ron at September 21, 2009 4:40 PM
This reminds me of a story from over at Bookworm Room. BW was explaining to her young son how Hitler came to power.
At the end, he looked up and said, "So he gave a good speech and everyone stopped thinking."
Out of the mouths of babes ...
Kirk Strong at September 21, 2009 5:14 PM
Are I-holier and Whatever the same guy? Is anybody certain? Has anyone ever seen them in the same room?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 21, 2009 5:31 PM
Conan, excellent assessment of Obama, particularly when comparing his credentials with previous presidents. And I don't mind adding, I like your style of writing. You're a thoughtful and interesting read. I would be less charitable with Dubya, however. His oil company failed to find oil in Texas. And the Rangers did poorly while Bush owned them. (And let's not forget, he traded Sammy Sosa.)
I hate to sound unduly harsh on someone, even someone as callous as Bush, but the best he's ever done at anything in his life is mediocre. Yet conservatives expected a stellar president. There's a logical disconnect with taking a lifelong failure and expecting him to excel in the highest office in the land. Our chances were better at winning the lottery.
Patrick at September 21, 2009 5:32 PM
> Clinton might try in 2012 (she'll
> resign by 2010), but she's past
> her sell-by date.
That's fun to read!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 21, 2009 5:56 PM
Crid: Nope, I'm my own guy. Our blog goddess could verify this if she were inclined to check IPs. I post from several, but doubt I-holier and I have ever posted from the same.
Conan, the Republicans haven't been excluded; the Republicans have made a tactical decision to simply oppose everything Obama proposes, to be the party of no, and have offered no meaningful counter-proposals where common ground could be found. They haven't been negotiating in good faith.
This tactic could work, and perhaps win them back the House in 2010 if things are in the shitter still. Gambling on that, Republicans have opted to do nothing that could be construed as taking responsibility for any decisions being made. If Obama is as woefully incompetent as you and others here presume him to be, then this will have been a good gamble. That's why there has been no bipartisan bill.
Whatever at September 21, 2009 6:04 PM
Here are a few things:
The government distorts prices via Medicare and Medicaid, making health care more expensive.
The government collaborates with medical guilds, limiting the number of practitioners and decreasing supply, raising prices and increasing wait times.
We have markets where employers are customers, and we have markets where insurance companies are customers, but we don't have free markets where individuals are customers; individuals attempting to pay for their own health care a la carte have the deck stacked against them.
I'm no fan of Republicans, but they have offered up something like two dozen bills. Naturally they went nowhere, since Democrats control all the committees.
Pseudonym at September 21, 2009 6:21 PM
Patrick:
Which is more than Obama's ever done.
Conservatives expected no such thing. Republicans did. They aren't the same.
So you concede that Obama's probably the worst choice that could have been made?
brian at September 21, 2009 7:06 PM
Whatever:
You know what, you need to go away. You have been arguing in bad faith. You're coming from a point of complete ignorance of basic facts.
The facts are thus: The Republican party has been excluded from every meaningful debate in the House since January. This is not in dispute. Pelosi made it perfectly clear to the Republicans that any amendments they offered would not be considered. They were not invited to any of the discussions during the budgeting process.
Pelosi has a majority, she knows she doesn't need the Republicans for anything, and she's excluding them. She can get away with this because the instant the Republicans say anything about it, they get called "the party of no" and people like you eat it up.
People like you are the reason we have the most incompetent leader we have ever had.
Thanks a bunch.
brian at September 21, 2009 7:10 PM
Go ahead, Patrick. Call me hypersensitive again. Then read what "Whatever" posted again and tell me why he deserves anything better than scorn.
brian at September 21, 2009 7:12 PM
Brian,
Not the party of no. Absolutely not. What republican-hater and total political outsider wrote this?
While Fred Barnes' triumphalism right now I think is premature, there's no doubt what team he's on.
Whatever at September 21, 2009 8:22 PM
I'm a libertarian but, if push comes to shove (as it rarely does in Illinois), I'd vote Republican.
I (would have) voted for McCain, but I loved the idea of a charismatic black president (post racial society and all that). When I woke up after election day, I was happy that my guy had lost. After all, the economy is mostly about consumer and business confidence. Obama would have the best chance of "talking" us out of a recession.
During the transition, I became more certain that the right man had won. I was concerned that he kept talking so negatively about the economy, but he was making all those centrist cabinet appointments, so I felt good. Maybe, I thought, it would take an Obama to rein in the worst tendencies of the liberal House and Senate.
Then, he took office and handed over policy making to those that I'd (foolishly) hoped he would control. What a disaster. A pork laden stimulus bill with earmarks galore, cap and trade and a very liberal health care reform package (you can't even really call it "his" reform package).
Mostly, I'm stunned by his administration's lack of ability from the viewpoint of his own self interest. If they were succeeding in doing exactly what they wanted, I would admire the effort even if I opposed the goal.
There can not be a true bi-partisan solution for health care. Mainstream Democrats want something that will eventually turn into single-payer. Mainstream Republicans will never go along with that. If bi-partisanship means picking off a couple of liberal Reuplican Senators, why bother? Is that really what bi-partisan means? The Democrats can pass any bill they want, Republicans aren't the problem, the moderate Democrats are.
It looks now like the only way this can turn out well is if the Democrats make such a mess of things that they are thrown out of the congress, Obama pulls a Clinton, goes centrist and gets re-elected. Since Obama is nowhere near as good a politician as Clinton, maybe the next big face-off between a Republican congress & a Democratic president will turn out differently than it did last time.
If the Republicans get another chance and blow it like they did the last time, then there's no hope.
BillB at September 21, 2009 8:59 PM
Brian writes:
Why? The reason I called hypersensitive in the first place is because you found it necessary to call me names simply for disagreeing with you. You stated your dissent ably and well, this time, and you didn't feel the need to call me anything.
Brian writes:
Why? Because he doesn't agree with you and is an Obama supporter? I have little use for either Obama or Bush, but Whatever is entitled to his/her opinions.
At the risk of sounding biased (since I seem to have his undivided attention at the moment), I would say that the only person who deserves scorn is Avenger. As Jay R points out, he's merely policing the blog (with the aid of his faithful Indian companion, Marko), and apparently, he does this a bit.
And by the way, thanks, Jay R.
Patrick at September 22, 2009 4:44 AM
Regarding the fiscal stimulus measures, it is true that these seldom work. Indeed, it is hard to think of an example of a major economy that has been able to pull itself out of an economic downturn primarily through deficit financing. Japan and many European countries have been doing this for a while, but with little clear benefit.
If a country is running a large budget deficit then sooner or later the cost of this will have to be paid for in terms of higher taxes and possibly higher interest rates and higher inflation. The business and investment community realize this, and factor this in when making decisions about where to put their money. Economic decisions are not based solely on what is happening now, but are also based on rational expectations about what is likely to happen in the future. Few people scour the financial pages and say "oh look! That country has a budget deficit of 10% of GDP. Better invest my money there!"
The other problem with deficit financing is that if governments borrow more money, the money doesn't just come from thin air. It has to come from elsewhere in the economy. If investors buy up government bonds, then that is money that would otherwise have been either spent or invested elsewhere in the economy anyway. So instead of adding to economic activity, it merely displaces and 'crowds out' other economic activity. Even if the money is borrowed from overseas, this probably still competes with private businesses seeking to borrow money to finance their own development (as the financial markets would be monitoring the overall amount of national debt relative to the ability of the country's economy to service it).
The arguments for fiscal stimulus and pump-priming smack of simplistic, flat-earth assumptions about how the economy works. But as most people are ignorant about economics, it is easy to sell such policies to a public anxious for the government to 'do something'.
Nick S at September 22, 2009 6:01 AM
"When are you people gonna get it through your head - John Maynard Keynes was wrong!" - Brian
Keynes actually recommended that governments should pay people to dig ditches and then fill them back in again. It is hard to believe that someone like this could have influenced economic policy for such a long time.
Nick S at September 22, 2009 6:08 AM
No. Because he believes things that are clearly false and cannot be disabused of these things.
That's not reason, it's religion.
Deficit spending has never ended a recession, yet he seems to think it's just a dandy idea.
No government-managed healthcare system has been successful in the long term, yet he wants to impose one here.
No government program has ever come in under budget, yet he foolishly believes that he'll save money when the government takes over the entire health care industry.
Believing in Obama is a fool's errand. And those who still believe in Mr. Hope and Change are clearly fools.
I'll still take $100 on the under. Obama resigns having completed less than two years of his first term.
brian at September 22, 2009 9:41 AM
Whatever:
Way to completely miss the point.
All the Republicans have left is "no." Their votes are irrelevant, as they are outnumbered in both House and Senate. Their opinions are irrelevant as they control no committees. Their amendments are irrelevant because Pelosi is not allowing them to be debated.
Why should the Republicans go along with an agenda that is both anathema to their beliefs and which they had absolutely no say in creating?
brian at September 22, 2009 9:43 AM
On the field, yes. Bush was not the field general...although he was instrumental in hiring the field generals.
He was the back office guy. And despite poor on-field play, the Rangers increased in value under Bush's management. That made them a good investment for his investors (and not a bad deal for Bush who pocketed a pretty nice percentage of the sale price himself).
Most CEOs (and shareholders) would be called successful if the company's value increased significantly on their watch.
OTOH, I'm not real happy about cities financing ball parks (which Arlington did to keep the Rangers). That was Bush's signature deal while managing the Rangers and a key part of the team's increase in value.
And, in self-deprecating quips, he brings that up often and admits it was a mistake.
If that's the case, then Nancy and Harry's idea of including someone is to slam the door in their face.
The Republicans were shut out of the stimulus discussions. They were shut out of the healthcare reform discussions. They've been shut out of cap and trade discussions. At what point were they given any choice but to just say "no?"
The Dems are a very angry and vengeful party right now. Idealogical purity is demanded by the leadership and by the party's powerful left-wing factions - and it's turning off the more moderate Blue Dogs (and the independent voters).
Even party stalwart, Joe Lieberman, has felt the wrath of the left-wing idealogues. He was the party's vice presidential candidate in 2000 and on the enemies list by 2006. He was almost bounced from his committee seats and cut out of all policy discussions - until the party leadership realized he was part of the filibuster-proof 60 votes.
The Republicans were spanked in the last election because they forgot they are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility (too many self-righteous evangelicals gumming up the works). They are trying to return to the fiscal responsibility motif. Smiling and going along with Obama's "spend our children into poverty" economic plan would not help that goal.
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2009 10:11 AM
Even party stalwart, Joe Lieberman, has felt the wrath of the left-wing idealogues.
Party stalwart? LOL. He campaigned for McCain against Obama. He was always the guy who could be trotted out on talk shows to chastize Democrats to give cover for Bush on Iraq. Fuck Lieberman. They should have stripped him of all seniority and made him go ahead and join the minority party he supports anyway. It's this sort of failure to enforce party discipline that makes the Senate Democrats such a failure under Reid.
Anyway, I'm done on this thread. Blog commentary never convinces anyone of anything. Obama is a fool, he's doomed to failure, blah, blah, blah.
We'll see what happens between now and 2010.
Whatever at September 22, 2009 12:57 PM
I'll still take $100 on the under. Obama resigns having completed less than two years of his first term.
I'll take the over! WIll you be man enough to pay up Jan 21, 2011?
Whatever at September 22, 2009 12:59 PM
Joe Lieberman was no longer a "Democrat" when he campaigned for McCain. The party abandoned him in 2006 when it supported Ned Lamont for Senator. Lieberman was forced to win his seat as an Independent. Which means he's allowed to be an Independent.
Lieberman was a solid Democratic vote on social issues and most foreign policy issues.
He broke with the party in not conveniently forgetting his earlier support of the war in Iraq when it became inconvenient. That earned him the wrath of the left-wing zealots.
It sounds like you're demanding ideological purity from all members of the party.
Don't you just hate it when party members think for themselves?
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2009 2:42 PM
> Blog commentary never convinces
> anyone of anything.
I've been convinced of all sorts of things by blog comments... Absolutely transformative conversions...
Never by you, but just sayin'....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 22, 2009 2:50 PM
It sounds like you're demanding ideological purity from all members of the party.
Don't you just hate it when party members think for themselves?
Not so. I'm fine with people who think for themselves. There's a time for independent action, but part of being part of the caucus is being a good teammate. Lieberman doesn't do that. When you actively oppose your party's candidate for President and very publicly campaign for his opponent, you deserve to be booted from the caucus.
Whatever at September 22, 2009 5:02 PM
Well maybe if your party didn't intentionally snub you and then demand that you support an ignorant douchebag you'd have a point.
As much as I hate Joe Lieberman, he was right to support the war, and he was right to beat Ned Lamont.
Lamont would have made us a worse laughingstock than Franken's going to do to Minnesota.
brian at September 22, 2009 5:41 PM
Lieberman didn't oppose his party's candidate. Obama is a Democrat and Lieberman is an Independent.
If the Democrats wanted a Democratic Joe Lieberman, they shouldn't have booted him from the caucus by supporting his opponent in the 2006 election - long before he chose McCain over Obama.
As an Independent, Joe Lieberman gets to do things the Democrats don't like and there is nothing they can do about it. They need his vote so they have to keep him happy. He doesn't need them. Their mistake was showing him that in 2006.
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2009 6:00 PM
My whole point is that Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats; he is a de facto Democrat. He should not have been permitted to oppose Obama without penalty. He's not a reliable vote anyway. If Reid had any balls at all he'd have been expelled from the caucus. The Democrats might lose a few more cloture votes, but it would probably help to to keep some of the other wobbly types in line when they realize they'll lose all their seniority and have to go to the back of the line in the other party. But Reid is too much of a pussy to do this.
Whatwver at September 22, 2009 6:27 PM
It is precisely this wholesale electoral fraud that is going to lose the Democrats the House in 2010.
See, Nancy Pelosi convinced a bunch of conservative Democrats to run against weak Republicans in swing states. She did this by promising to govern from the center.
Then, once the majority was solidly in place, she told them "you will vote my way or you will be left out in the cold."
The people who elected those conservative Democrats didn't vote for liberalism, and those Democrats are now feeling some rather intense heat for caving to the far left.
Joseph Lieberman was the last, best hope for the Democratic party to remain viable. They are, like the Republicans, dead man walking.
America is NOT a communist country. Americans will not tolerate the imposition of communist ideals. Democrats forget this at their peril.
brian at September 22, 2009 7:38 PM
Whatever,
You say you want Congressional reps to think for themselves, but you castigate the ones who do and lambaste the ones who fail to whip them into line.
Despite your pretense of valuing independent thought, you want the Dems to march the country lockstep toward Obamaville.
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2009 9:41 PM
They can vote against the bill. But when they support Republican filibusters and won't vote for cloture they might as well not be part of the caucus. Occasionally, you gotta suck one up and be a team player. Otherwise, why have the party?
Whatwver at September 23, 2009 9:01 AM
Brian, I'd take that bet. Obama, barring untimely demise, will still be president on January 21st, 2011.
Patrick at September 23, 2009 9:04 AM
Oh, Brian - it was not pelosi but Rahm Emanuel who organized the Democrats' congressional strategy. In a better world, he would have stayed in the house and swiped the Speaker's role from her.
Whatever at September 23, 2009 9:06 AM
I don't care who designed it, Pelosi executed it and she's the one that was doing the ground work.
Pelosi is a piece of shit. She's as dumb as a bag of hair, and she is right now the most powerful person in the world.
The fact that she can't get anything through a caucus that she utterly controls should point out her utter incompetence and unfitness to lead.
Patrick - keep dreaming. The absolute best case scenario for Obama is that he's one-and-done. But I expect him to cut and run long before that. He's like the dog that finally caught the car. Now he's hanging there with the bumper in his mouth and no clue how to let go.
brian at September 23, 2009 11:05 AM
Pelosi executed it and she's the one that was doing the ground work.
This is simply not correct. Rahm was head of the DCCC, it was his plan and he executed it. Pelosi's district is San Francisco; she has no idea how to get people elected in Red states. No, you need a Clintonista for that.
The fact that she can't get anything through a caucus that she utterly controls should point out her utter incompetence and unfitness to lead.
I won't deny her unfitness to lead. We won't agree on much, I imagine, but the awfulness of Nancy Pelosi is one point where you'll get no disagreement here. My dad, a loyal Democrat all his life, recently expressed his desire that someone would "take her out back and shoot her."
But the real problem in passing the health insurance legislation is the Senate, not the House.
Whatever at September 23, 2009 1:02 PM
You mean the senate, with the filibuster-proof majority?
No, the real "problem" in passing the health insurance legislation is the legislation itself.
See, when you tell a bunch of people like me (the self-employed) that the insurance you just bought is going to be invalidated immediately upon passage of the law, and you will be forbidden by law from buying insurance of any kind until the Exchange is set up some time in 2013, you get a bit cranky.
And the more people read the legislation, the more they find that it's going to fuck them long and hard, with no lubrication. And no kiss afterward either. And you can bet it won't call.
No, the Senate will kill this bill as it stands because they don't want to end up unemployed. And if it gets thrown back over the wall to the house, they'll quietly drop it. The House Democrats stuck their neck out once on Cap & Trade, and they got cut. They won't be eager to put their necks on the line for the progressives again.
brian at September 23, 2009 2:22 PM
You may not want to accept this, but eight months in to his first term, Obama's already a lame duck.
He staked his entire presidency on getting three things done in his first year, and he's not going to get any of them, ever.
Cap & Trade is dead in the water. The Senate won't even discuss it.
Universal Healthcare is dead. Once the people realized what the end goal of all this bullshit was, they decided that it sucks and they don't want it. None of the Blue Dog coalition are gonna risk losing to satisfy the progressive leadership. And the chances of getting progressives from those states is nil. Rahm Emanuel may have orchestrated the whole "lie to the people and get conservative democrats elected and then pull a switcheroo and make them support the progressive agenda" campaign, but San Fran Nan can't force them to vote her way because they aren't going to betray their constituents over something as petty as party affiliation. In fact, if she tries to punish them, they will probably defect.
Card Check is dead. The Thug tactics of SEIU and other unions during the whole town hall period have turned a bunch of people who didn't give a fuck against unions. The idea that the government would hand them a major power play isn't going to sit well.
Obama's three signature policies - dead. And he has no ability to triangulate because his entire base is far-left. Clinton at least had the centrist "New Democrats" and the DLC behind him. The Kossacks that got Obama elected said "Fuck Clinton and the DLC, we want a progressive that won't shy away from fucking up the country."
How's that workin' for ya?
brian at September 23, 2009 2:29 PM
Filibuster-proof means all 60 dems stick together. And that's counting Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, and Landrieu, all of whom are wishy washy at best. And as I mentioned, Harry Reid can't keep his caucus together. He's a crappy leader. So filibuster-proof in a technical, not a practical sense.
Are these things dead like you said Sotomayor's nomination was? Cause that sure sailed through.
God I hope card check is dead, though.
Health care reform of some sort will pass. Before the year is done.
Cap and trade, not so sure. Don't care as much there; I favor a carbon tax, which would be much more effective.
Whatever at September 23, 2009 3:50 PM
Sotomayor would have been dead but for the unreasonable deference Republicans seem to feel towards the office of the President. she hardly "sailed through".
You're right - they'll take something, put the name "health care reform" on it, and call it victory. If it does anything, it will only make things worse, requiring further reform. Obama's grand plan of putting us on the road to universal single-payer is dead, the "public option" is dead. At best, he'll get some kind of subsidy bill to buy catastrophic care for the indigent.
You say you favor a carbon tax which would be effective. Effective at what? Stealing money from the productive in an effort to force the remaining industries in America to move abroad? Global warming isn't happening, and we aren't affecting the climate.
brian at September 23, 2009 4:39 PM
Brian, you contradict yourself. Even if the bill doesn't go as far as progressives want (which is fine by me), once health care reform of some sort passes, Obama and the Democrats get to claim legislative victory. And that's all it will take to re-energize other aspects of his agenda. He'll no longer be the lame duck you claim him to be. As I have stated all thread, it's too soon to claim Obama a failure; now it's clear you agree.
--
I think a carbon tax would reduce carbon emissions, especially from particularly polluting sources like coal power plants faster and with far fewer opportunities for fraud than cap and trade. Which is why I favor that approach.
What I can't understand about you and many other climate change denialists (that are not raving god botherers) is that presumably, you don't think that the majority of the world's biologists are wrong about say, evolution, or physicists about black holes warping space-time, etc. It's only climatologists whom you think are wrong as a group. Why are these scientists peculiarly unable to get things right?
Whatever at September 23, 2009 6:01 PM
No, I don't. Claiming victory, and actually achieving it are not the same thing. Clinton claimed victory in Jerusalem. Carter claimed victory in North Korea. Neither achieved their stated goals.
Obama's goal is (for starters) a government-run insurance program to compete with the private sector. The long-term goal (as has been stated by The Man himself) is universal single-payer. He will get neither of these. In fact, he will not get one step closer to his goal. He will claim victory while achieving failure. The legislature will not follow him any further.
No, what it would do is raise electricity rates through the roof either from taxes or from limited availability of power. I mean, that second option will certainly reduce emissions, but your internet is gonna be pretty spotty, along with television and air conditioning and lighting. Lower emissions should not be the primary goal. Power generation should. The bulk of the people who support Cap&Trade do not support actually putting any new power generation on line, even though they claim to support "renewable energy".
First, you can stop with the comparisons to holocaust denial. It's trite, and it's bullshit.
And it's not climatologists that are on board with this whole global warming thing. If they were, then the bitch that runs The Weather Channel wouldn't have been proposing that any meteorologist that doesn't accept AGW theory ought to be decertified.
The bulk of the Climate Change Alarmists are not scientists at all. Al Gore is nothing - he literally flunked out of Divinity school. The head of the IPCC is an Economist. What few scientists there are in the IPCC are almost exclusively NOT from climate or weather related disciplines.
And yet they had the audacity to claim that a world-renowned physicist was incapable of forming a proper understanding of the data because he's not a climatologist?
News Flash: Neither are the bulk of the AGW camp.
What few climatologists are involved have made fools of themselves by getting caught fudging the data to support their conclusions.
Go look at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com and tell me that we can take Hansen et. al. seriously after they've basically been caught making it all up out of whole cloth.
Then ask yourself if you're willing to be the future of the free world on the predictions of a few dedicated anti-capitalists who've been wrong their entire professional lives.
brian at September 23, 2009 9:29 PM
First, you can stop with the comparisons to holocaust denial
I haven't made them. But I analogize people who deny humans' role in fucking up the climate to creationists. I think what you believe flies in the face of the data that we have at hand. But you've presented me with information I'm familiar with, so I'll check it out.
Whatever at September 23, 2009 10:39 PM
Actually, the data we have at hand either disproves the entire greenhouse theory, or at least makes it inoperative because there's something that's forcing temperatures down harder than the greenhouse effect is pushing them up.
brian at September 24, 2009 5:22 AM
I read that link, and agree it gives reasons to be skeptical about some players.
Actually, the data we have at hand either disproves the entire greenhouse theory, or at least makes it inoperative because there's something that's forcing temperatures down harder than the greenhouse effect is pushing them up.
I'm not sure I know what data you're talking about. Here's NOAA:
"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3
Whatever at September 24, 2009 9:27 AM
those last two sentences are actually false if you look at the graphs at WUWT.
Keep in mind that anything coming from the government is inherently compromised because they all use the intentionally falsified GISS dataset from James Hansen.
WUWT was instrumental in the debunking of Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" which is the basis for most of the hysteria in the AGW debate.
In point of fact, global mean temperature was flat from 2000 through 2007, and then dropped sharply - by almost 0.74 degrees in fact.
In other words, global mean temperature is now back where it was at the beginning of the time period used to "prove" AGW.
The reason there's so much rushing to get all these capitalism and industry destroying agreements in place and binding is because the bottom is about to fall out of the AGW debate as it is revealed for the fraud it has always been.
You would do well to consider that the people pushing AGW are the same people who were pushing the theory of global cooling and "the coming ice age" in the mid 1970s. And their solution was the same - the abandonment of market capitalism and the imposition of global central planning with themselves in charge.
The environmental movement was co-opted by socialists in the 60s, and nobody wants to talk about how they've used it to advance their goals of central planning since.
brian at September 24, 2009 9:35 AM
Leave a comment