The US public has long felt guilty about historical racism, and so they felt great about electing a black president, and giving him some space to do what he wants. That and Bush-hatred seemed to give progressives a rare opportunity to achieve many things they’ve always wanted.
Nah....Obama is still so deified, far and above any politician in my 46-years, that he can do no wrong via the general populace and mainstream press...
Do you really think Obama needs to build up political capital in congress, when he already has a majority in both houses behind him? What indication do you have that they won't just do everything he asks for right now?
Meanwhile, his policies have been so stereotypically and irresponsibly leftist that they are pushing the public's political pendulum back to the right.
Obama has spent much of his political capital on changes far from professed progressive priorities. He spent lots on fiscal stimulus and nationalizing the auto industry, and seems to have too little left for big medical and financial reform.
This seems backwards to me; the fiscal stimulus wasn't spending political capital, it was *building* it, by giving congress permission to spend money on projects for their home districts. When it comes time to pass a health care bill, all those congressmen who used the stimulus money will owe him one.
The media still takes every possible opportunity to write about Obama, even when there's nothing newsworthy to say. The front page of cnn.com currently links to filler a story about Obama visiting a custard shop with his family. So I don't think there's much risk of the media losing interest or turning against him any time soon.
If Obama's goal is genuine "change," then his actions are inexplicable, as you rightly point out. He's squandering all his chances. But if his goal is to pay off political contributors, then they make perfect sense -- he's hitting everything on the nose. Since I believe him to be a highly intelligent man, I can only infer that his goal is not social change so much as paying off his contributors.
Obama and his team is being consumed by power and its consequences. To believe that Obama was ever ready to lead the greatest nation history has ever witnessed without any experience was naive (being kind). The actions he has taken reflect those of a person not sure where he wants to go, one without a vision. He is merely caught in the moment. He and his advisors spew rhetoric appropriate for an editorial column. The thoughts and actions reflect not those required to govern 300M Americans in a complex world order.
The mythology to empiricism ratio in this post seems high to me.I see nothing wrong with "subtle Obama bashing", but I'd rather great empiricism and analysis do the leg work, rather than social mythological fluff.
Obama has to turn the economy or he's finished politically. This isn't optional and nothing (except maybe war) is more important.Also remember that without the economic crisis he wouldn't be president.
That is not supposed to say that his primary motivation can't be patriotism. But even from a tactical viewpoint he must deal with the emergency first and pay the price that needs to be payed.If he screws this up, the Democratic Party will be finished.
Could it just be that Obama and his advisers felt that the financial crisis had to be dealt with first for the sake of the future of the country? And that they put the future of the country ahead of other progressive goals?
I know it's unlikely that a politician would put the country first ahead of his/her own partisan agenda. After all pigs don't fly, right. But maybe, just maybe that's what's happening here.
I read your post as little more than subtle Obama bashing.
Robin, why do you interpret these changes as a "conservative" swing? On all but one of the issues you mention (abortion being the exception) interpreting them as a libertarian swing would be at least as defensible.
I think you're also in some danger of misattributing long-term trends. As a firearms-rights advocate, I've been watching that issue for many years now, and the steady erosion of popular support for gun-control laws predates the Obama phenomenon by at least fifteen years - you can find evidence for this in the steady spread of state-level "shall-issue" legislation effectively denying local authorities the power to withold concealed-carry licenses without specific cause. The event that seems to have triggered the recent more precipitous slide in support for anti-gun laws wasn't Obama's election but the exposure of the Bellesisles fraud in 2000; that damaged the credibility of gun-control advocates in ways which they have not yet recovered, and led fairly directly to the Heller ruling.
Ah, I hadn't found those specific rules. My main point is that Obama will probably achieve substantially less than he could have - I'm not saying that nothing will happen. Apparently there is a 40% chance of some new govt program.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Liberals now call themselves progressive, like polishing a turd if you ask me.
Nah....Obama is still so deified, far and above any politician in my 46-years, that he can do no wrong via the general populace and mainstream press...
lol
> little more than subtle Obama bashing.
Try rereading it then. There is sophisticated content here.
Do you really think Obama needs to build up political capital in congress, when he already has a majority in both houses behind him? What indication do you have that they won't just do everything he asks for right now?
Meanwhile, his policies have been so stereotypically and irresponsibly leftist that they are pushing the public's political pendulum back to the right.
Obama has spent much of his political capital on changes far from professed progressive priorities. He spent lots on fiscal stimulus and nationalizing the auto industry, and seems to have too little left for big medical and financial reform.
This seems backwards to me; the fiscal stimulus wasn't spending political capital, it was *building* it, by giving congress permission to spend money on projects for their home districts. When it comes time to pass a health care bill, all those congressmen who used the stimulus money will owe him one.
The media still takes every possible opportunity to write about Obama, even when there's nothing newsworthy to say. The front page of cnn.com currently links to filler a story about Obama visiting a custard shop with his family. So I don't think there's much risk of the media losing interest or turning against him any time soon.
If Obama's goal is genuine "change," then his actions are inexplicable, as you rightly point out. He's squandering all his chances. But if his goal is to pay off political contributors, then they make perfect sense -- he's hitting everything on the nose. Since I believe him to be a highly intelligent man, I can only infer that his goal is not social change so much as paying off his contributors.
Conservatives underestimating Obama with wishful thinking. Nothing I like better...
Are you serious?
I added to the post.
Obama and his team is being consumed by power and its consequences. To believe that Obama was ever ready to lead the greatest nation history has ever witnessed without any experience was naive (being kind). The actions he has taken reflect those of a person not sure where he wants to go, one without a vision. He is merely caught in the moment. He and his advisors spew rhetoric appropriate for an editorial column. The thoughts and actions reflect not those required to govern 300M Americans in a complex world order.
The mythology to empiricism ratio in this post seems high to me.I see nothing wrong with "subtle Obama bashing", but I'd rather great empiricism and analysis do the leg work, rather than social mythological fluff.
Obama has to turn the economy or he's finished politically. This isn't optional and nothing (except maybe war) is more important.Also remember that without the economic crisis he wouldn't be president.
That is not supposed to say that his primary motivation can't be patriotism. But even from a tactical viewpoint he must deal with the emergency first and pay the price that needs to be payed.If he screws this up, the Democratic Party will be finished.
Could it just be that Obama and his advisers felt that the financial crisis had to be dealt with first for the sake of the future of the country? And that they put the future of the country ahead of other progressive goals?
I know it's unlikely that a politician would put the country first ahead of his/her own partisan agenda. After all pigs don't fly, right. But maybe, just maybe that's what's happening here.
I read your post as little more than subtle Obama bashing.
Robin, why do you interpret these changes as a "conservative" swing? On all but one of the issues you mention (abortion being the exception) interpreting them as a libertarian swing would be at least as defensible.
I think you're also in some danger of misattributing long-term trends. As a firearms-rights advocate, I've been watching that issue for many years now, and the steady erosion of popular support for gun-control laws predates the Obama phenomenon by at least fifteen years - you can find evidence for this in the steady spread of state-level "shall-issue" legislation effectively denying local authorities the power to withold concealed-carry licenses without specific cause. The event that seems to have triggered the recent more precipitous slide in support for anti-gun laws wasn't Obama's election but the exposure of the Bellesisles fraud in 2000; that damaged the credibility of gun-control advocates in ways which they have not yet recovered, and led fairly directly to the Heller ruling.
Ah, I hadn't found those specific rules. My main point is that Obama will probably achieve substantially less than he could have - I'm not saying that nothing will happen. Apparently there is a 40% chance of some new govt program.