I always feel guilty when I have not posted for a few days. I worry that I will have let down my loyal readers. Don't get me wrong. I know I don't have that many loyal readers. On a good day, I might get about 50 or so visitors. That's not a lot in the blogosphere. But still.
One of the reasons that I have not posted anything since last Wednesday is because I have been away at a conference. I find it difficult to post things and deal with comments when I am travelling. But I am now back and can no longer use that excuse.
Another problem that I have been having lately is that posting on my favorite topic - President Obama - is becoming less fun for me. You see, I am essentially a contrarian. And criticizing the President is now becoming a bit too common place for my style of blogging. Everyone seems to be a critic, even those who strongly identify with and support him. They are crowding me out.
For example, take a look at today's Real Clear Politics.com. Roger Cohen, a self-professed "admirer" of the President, in his article entitled "Obama in His Labyrinth", published in the New York Times no less, writes that he is "worried". The President "feels over-managed, over-scripted to me, to the point where he's not showing the guts that prevailed at various difficult moments in the campaign". The opinion piece goes on to explain the author's disappointment with a long list of Obama's non-achievements to date.
Another commentator, Richard Cohen, who confesses that he supported Obama in the primaries against Hillary and voted for him "with both glee and enthusiasm", writes in his article, "Missing Barack Obama" (the title says it all) of a President "whose moral clarity has been dissipated". Rather than moral clarity it has all become "an Obama gray". The author lists his personal disappointments and wonders where the Barack Obama of the "famous speech on race" has gone.
There are several other similar pieces from David Kuhn's "Obama's Failing: Too Much Head, Too Little Gut" to the more scathing piece by Pat Buchanan "Our Pushover President". Andrew Malcolm's article "Now Democrats join Dick Cheney's critique of Obama" points out negative reviews from some other friendlies - Arianna Huffington and Leslie Gelb.
All of these critical pieces and others like them can be seen in just the one day, November 24, postings on RealClearPolitics. com. What is also interesting to note is the absence of any positive assessments.
So there it is. Unless the tide turns or I quit being a contrarian (unlikely I agree), I will have to write about other things.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
"GOING ROGUE" GETS EXTRA SPECIAL ATTENTION
Palin's book, "GOING ROGUE" is apparently getting extra special attention by the Associated Press. Apparently 11 staff members were assigned to "fact check" the book. According to the FOX News story, this compares to zero, which is the number of those people AP assigned to fact check books written by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Joe Biden, Barack Obama, the Clintons, Rudy Guliani, or Newt Gingrich. Interesting, no?
By the way, the President does not intend to read the book. No time. Obama does think that Palin is a "credible candidate" for the Presidency should she decide to run in 2012, displaying a lot more graciousness and respect for her constituency than most of her detractors.
By the way, the President does not intend to read the book. No time. Obama does think that Palin is a "credible candidate" for the Presidency should she decide to run in 2012, displaying a lot more graciousness and respect for her constituency than most of her detractors.
FOX WAR WINDING DOWN
It appears that the White House has decided to wind down its war against FOX News. First came the news that Communications Director and Field Commander Anita Dunn, who led the battle on the part of the White House, was stepping down from her post. More encouragingly, the President granted FOX news an interview during his China trip. Good sense has prevailed. Now let's see what the President decides to do about Afghanistan.
Monday, November 16, 2009
LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK
I love an old joke told by Yogi Berra. The one about how a New York restaurant is always so crowded and hard to get into that no-one ever goes there anymore.
And so it goes with everyone's favorite person to talk about, Sarah Palin. Respected conservative commentator David Brooks (who I really like by the way) thinks she is "a joke". Brooks might think Palin is a joke, but it's Sarah who is the one laughing all the way to the bank these days.
Barely a year ago, Sarah Palin was a little known Governor from Alaska. Today she is the talk of the town - an American political celebrity, with millions of followers, huge influence, and lots of dough, with much more of it all to come. Take a look, for example, at the news stories of the day from Real Clear Politics website's eclectic collection. It's all about Sarah Palin. She's on the cover of Newsweek, in a very dazzling photo. The story lines are a mixed bag - "How Palin Can Win the GOP Nomination"; "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah Palin"; "Why Sarah Palin Is Bad For the GOP"; "Palin Tells Her Side of the Story"; "Palin Braves Another Week of Bashing"; "Palin Image Is A Fraud"; "Sarah Palin: Rogue For President" - and that's just from one day of Real Clear Politics. She is on television with the Queen of T.V., Oprah, and with Barbara Walters. And on it goes. Palin, Palin, Palin.
This does not usually happen with people who are second on the ticket in a losing cause. I am not an expert on what has happened historically to failed Vice Presidential nominees but I would be surprised if many have had as much ink, and influence, as Sarah Palin (unless they subsequently ran for and became President).
Like her or hate her, Palin is a phenomenon. By saying this I am not pretending to say that she qualifies for being President, because she does not. I am not saying that she will become President, because she will not. I am not saying that I agree with all or even most of her views, because I do not. I was attracted to her freshness, her willingness to take on the establishment, her populism, and her courage and dignity in facing down the mocking sexism and viciousness which constantly greeted her, when she was on the McCain ticket. I thought then that McCain was the better suited of Obama or McCain to become President and I defended Palin because I thought she would help the ticket.
I continue to marvel at how this failed Vice Presidential candidate has not faded at all from the political scene, but in fact dominates it even more. She did not become Vice President, but she did not merely lick her wounds and retreat to Alaska. She continues to stare down her detractors and she continues to drive them crazy. As my mother always told me when I was being bugged by my older brother - "just ignore him". Advice to the Palin haters - why don't you try ignoring her?
And so it goes with everyone's favorite person to talk about, Sarah Palin. Respected conservative commentator David Brooks (who I really like by the way) thinks she is "a joke". Brooks might think Palin is a joke, but it's Sarah who is the one laughing all the way to the bank these days.
Barely a year ago, Sarah Palin was a little known Governor from Alaska. Today she is the talk of the town - an American political celebrity, with millions of followers, huge influence, and lots of dough, with much more of it all to come. Take a look, for example, at the news stories of the day from Real Clear Politics website's eclectic collection. It's all about Sarah Palin. She's on the cover of Newsweek, in a very dazzling photo. The story lines are a mixed bag - "How Palin Can Win the GOP Nomination"; "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah Palin"; "Why Sarah Palin Is Bad For the GOP"; "Palin Tells Her Side of the Story"; "Palin Braves Another Week of Bashing"; "Palin Image Is A Fraud"; "Sarah Palin: Rogue For President" - and that's just from one day of Real Clear Politics. She is on television with the Queen of T.V., Oprah, and with Barbara Walters. And on it goes. Palin, Palin, Palin.
This does not usually happen with people who are second on the ticket in a losing cause. I am not an expert on what has happened historically to failed Vice Presidential nominees but I would be surprised if many have had as much ink, and influence, as Sarah Palin (unless they subsequently ran for and became President).
Like her or hate her, Palin is a phenomenon. By saying this I am not pretending to say that she qualifies for being President, because she does not. I am not saying that she will become President, because she will not. I am not saying that I agree with all or even most of her views, because I do not. I was attracted to her freshness, her willingness to take on the establishment, her populism, and her courage and dignity in facing down the mocking sexism and viciousness which constantly greeted her, when she was on the McCain ticket. I thought then that McCain was the better suited of Obama or McCain to become President and I defended Palin because I thought she would help the ticket.
I continue to marvel at how this failed Vice Presidential candidate has not faded at all from the political scene, but in fact dominates it even more. She did not become Vice President, but she did not merely lick her wounds and retreat to Alaska. She continues to stare down her detractors and she continues to drive them crazy. As my mother always told me when I was being bugged by my older brother - "just ignore him". Advice to the Palin haters - why don't you try ignoring her?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
HIDING THE PHOTOS
CNN reported today that the Obama Administration has again decided to block the release of new photos of alleged abuse of suspected terrorists and foreign troops in US custody. Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed an order Friday blocking the release of all photos of detainee abuse taken between Sept. 11, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2009. The reason given is that the release would "endanger U.S. troops serving abroad".
The ACLU which has been taking legal action to have the release of these photos bluntly states that this "about-face" by Obama ( he had at one time agreed to the release of the photos) "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability. The decision to block the photos release is in opposition to a 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals 2008 decision that they must be released.
So what do I think?
Despite the fact that I am generally hawkish on the "war against terror", the decision to block the photos' release is the wrong one. The argument that it will endanger US troops abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq seems spurious. The troops are already in great danger in both places. They are also planning to leave Iraq. News of the photos' existence is well known. Hiding them will make the assumed abuse even worse in the imagination of those who hate America anyway. Covering up the truth never works, especially when the cover-up is so well publicized.
Obama is supposedly (to his admirers at least) the "unBush". This is a characterization which I reject as being false in terms of his foreign policy realities, other than for his rhetorical and the symbolic gestures. The present issue bears that out.
Obama's major achievement to date has been convincing most of the world that America will be a different (and in their view a better) place with Obama at the helm. He convinced the Nobel Committee of that, for example. So why block the photos? The abuse did not occur on his watch, so the "unBush" narrative is not harmed by the photos' release. In fact, it is strengthened. The cover up alienates a lot of Obama's supporters, and provides yet more ammunition for those who never fell for the rhetoric in the first place. More importantly it contravenes the fundamental ideals of transparency and accountability - of owning up to the sins of the past, by exposing them and doing something about them.
So why is Obama doing this? Any ideas?
The ACLU which has been taking legal action to have the release of these photos bluntly states that this "about-face" by Obama ( he had at one time agreed to the release of the photos) "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability. The decision to block the photos release is in opposition to a 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals 2008 decision that they must be released.
So what do I think?
Despite the fact that I am generally hawkish on the "war against terror", the decision to block the photos' release is the wrong one. The argument that it will endanger US troops abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq seems spurious. The troops are already in great danger in both places. They are also planning to leave Iraq. News of the photos' existence is well known. Hiding them will make the assumed abuse even worse in the imagination of those who hate America anyway. Covering up the truth never works, especially when the cover-up is so well publicized.
Obama is supposedly (to his admirers at least) the "unBush". This is a characterization which I reject as being false in terms of his foreign policy realities, other than for his rhetorical and the symbolic gestures. The present issue bears that out.
Obama's major achievement to date has been convincing most of the world that America will be a different (and in their view a better) place with Obama at the helm. He convinced the Nobel Committee of that, for example. So why block the photos? The abuse did not occur on his watch, so the "unBush" narrative is not harmed by the photos' release. In fact, it is strengthened. The cover up alienates a lot of Obama's supporters, and provides yet more ammunition for those who never fell for the rhetoric in the first place. More importantly it contravenes the fundamental ideals of transparency and accountability - of owning up to the sins of the past, by exposing them and doing something about them.
So why is Obama doing this? Any ideas?
Monday, November 9, 2009
PRO-CHOICE FOLKS GET TOSSED UNDER THE BUS
I have been spending a few days down in Phoenix, getting my fill of all the analysis and punditry from FOX, CNN, NPR, Arizona Republic etc. etc. The talk is all about the Health Care Bill and the Fort Hood killer. The debate on the latter topic is predictable, with those on the right calling him a terrorist and denouncing the political correctness of the main stream media for refusing to do so. We can discuss that another day.
What struck me in particular about the House Bill on Health Care is the concession by Democrats and presumably the President to toss the pro-choice folks under the bus to get this 2000 page bill passed. I have no idea what is exactly in those 2000 pages and I doubt anyone does. But apparently there can be no Federal funding or subsidies for insurance plans (private or public) which cover abortions, except in limited cases. This seems like a pretty big concession for the President and the Democrats to have made.
It got me thinking. This is one of those issues ( like same sex marriage ) where you can see a major difference between Canadians and Americans. There is no way that most Canadians or any political leader would have let this one get away. But yet, aside from some minor commentary on this specific matter, there seems to be very little concern that pro- choice advocates in the US were so easily tossed under the bus to get this bill passed. It is another reminder to me that the President and the Democrats seems to have very few, if any, non-negotiable items with which they will stick, if it may result in negative political fall out. At one point, for example, Obama seemed ready to ditch the public insurance option to get his Bill through. (He may still have to.)
Whether in relation to foreign (Iran, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) or domestic policy issues, everything for this Administration seems to be negotiable and up for grabs. There are no sacred cows. Maybe this is good - a sign of flexibility. Or maybe it is not so good - shifting sands where no-one can really count on anything.
What struck me in particular about the House Bill on Health Care is the concession by Democrats and presumably the President to toss the pro-choice folks under the bus to get this 2000 page bill passed. I have no idea what is exactly in those 2000 pages and I doubt anyone does. But apparently there can be no Federal funding or subsidies for insurance plans (private or public) which cover abortions, except in limited cases. This seems like a pretty big concession for the President and the Democrats to have made.
It got me thinking. This is one of those issues ( like same sex marriage ) where you can see a major difference between Canadians and Americans. There is no way that most Canadians or any political leader would have let this one get away. But yet, aside from some minor commentary on this specific matter, there seems to be very little concern that pro- choice advocates in the US were so easily tossed under the bus to get this bill passed. It is another reminder to me that the President and the Democrats seems to have very few, if any, non-negotiable items with which they will stick, if it may result in negative political fall out. At one point, for example, Obama seemed ready to ditch the public insurance option to get his Bill through. (He may still have to.)
Whether in relation to foreign (Iran, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) or domestic policy issues, everything for this Administration seems to be negotiable and up for grabs. There are no sacred cows. Maybe this is good - a sign of flexibility. Or maybe it is not so good - shifting sands where no-one can really count on anything.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY
As a rookie blogger who has devoted a considerable number of my postings to the topic of President Obama, I would be remiss if I let the one year anniversary of his election as President to go by without comment. So here it is.
A little while ago, one might have thought that the one year anniversary of the historic 2008 election would have provoked wild celebration in the streets, intense analysis by the cable chatterers, and a general party like atmosphere in the US and elsewhere. This has not been the case. The day has passed without much attention and little revelry. If anything, the mood seems unusually sombre.
Reality has finally set in. When even CNN focuses its attention on the unkept or broken promises, one realizes the extent of the let down. The fact that unemployment in the US remains high, and the deficit continues to grow, does not help buoy anyone's spirits. For Democrats in particular, stinging losses in governorship races in Virginia and New Jersey on the eve of the anniversary does not help matters.
Whether one is a great fan of the President or not, one has to admit that things are not going too well for his administration at this point in time, especially on the big issues. Health care reform which was supposed to be done by August, and then by Christmas, seems likely to be put off yet again. It is unclear whether the reform, when it does come, will be much ado about nothing, and in particular will contain a public health option. In terms of foreign policy, the delay (some might say the dithering) on Afghanistan is disturbing. The election is over, the consultations have taken place, so decide already. I have noticed that one of Obama's strategies on many things is to delay in doing anything in the hope that the problem will cure itself. The Afghanistan problem will not cure itself. In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, things seem to be at an impasse. Secretary of State Clinton says one thing to the Israelis regarding settlement construction ( i.e the offer made was "unprecedented") and another to the Arabs ( i.e. all settlements are illegal). Carnage continues in Iraq and Pakistan with suicide bombings taking an unbearable toll of innocent civilians. The Iranian nuclear stand-off continues.
The same inaction or lack of will is evident elsewhere. Yet another referendum, this time in Maine, rejected same sex marriage. Despite his energetic and supportive speech to Gays and Lesbians just a short while ago, the President apparently did nothing to assist the same sex marriage advocates to defeat the referendum which overturned same sex marriage legislation in Maine. Guantanamo will not be closed by January as promised. Transparency in committee work on health care reform did not occur, and legislation is not posted on the web for Americans to view before votes are taken, as was promised. I do not know what is happening with the prosecution of those involved in torture, promised by Eric Holder, but this seems to be another issue which has fallen off the radar. The war against FOX seems to have been temporarily abandoned, especially since it has been questioned by even the friendlier "non-biased" media outlets, who now seem to be unwilling to be co-opted into battle.
The bloom is off the rose. This is good. The only way to get politicians and other administrators moving is to put their feet to the fire. A free pass does no-one any good. Let us see where we will be on November 4, 2010.
A little while ago, one might have thought that the one year anniversary of the historic 2008 election would have provoked wild celebration in the streets, intense analysis by the cable chatterers, and a general party like atmosphere in the US and elsewhere. This has not been the case. The day has passed without much attention and little revelry. If anything, the mood seems unusually sombre.
Reality has finally set in. When even CNN focuses its attention on the unkept or broken promises, one realizes the extent of the let down. The fact that unemployment in the US remains high, and the deficit continues to grow, does not help buoy anyone's spirits. For Democrats in particular, stinging losses in governorship races in Virginia and New Jersey on the eve of the anniversary does not help matters.
Whether one is a great fan of the President or not, one has to admit that things are not going too well for his administration at this point in time, especially on the big issues. Health care reform which was supposed to be done by August, and then by Christmas, seems likely to be put off yet again. It is unclear whether the reform, when it does come, will be much ado about nothing, and in particular will contain a public health option. In terms of foreign policy, the delay (some might say the dithering) on Afghanistan is disturbing. The election is over, the consultations have taken place, so decide already. I have noticed that one of Obama's strategies on many things is to delay in doing anything in the hope that the problem will cure itself. The Afghanistan problem will not cure itself. In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, things seem to be at an impasse. Secretary of State Clinton says one thing to the Israelis regarding settlement construction ( i.e the offer made was "unprecedented") and another to the Arabs ( i.e. all settlements are illegal). Carnage continues in Iraq and Pakistan with suicide bombings taking an unbearable toll of innocent civilians. The Iranian nuclear stand-off continues.
The same inaction or lack of will is evident elsewhere. Yet another referendum, this time in Maine, rejected same sex marriage. Despite his energetic and supportive speech to Gays and Lesbians just a short while ago, the President apparently did nothing to assist the same sex marriage advocates to defeat the referendum which overturned same sex marriage legislation in Maine. Guantanamo will not be closed by January as promised. Transparency in committee work on health care reform did not occur, and legislation is not posted on the web for Americans to view before votes are taken, as was promised. I do not know what is happening with the prosecution of those involved in torture, promised by Eric Holder, but this seems to be another issue which has fallen off the radar. The war against FOX seems to have been temporarily abandoned, especially since it has been questioned by even the friendlier "non-biased" media outlets, who now seem to be unwilling to be co-opted into battle.
The bloom is off the rose. This is good. The only way to get politicians and other administrators moving is to put their feet to the fire. A free pass does no-one any good. Let us see where we will be on November 4, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
