SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (42569)4/5/2010 1:34:45 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
It’s not just the Tea Party right or some on the liberal left who see only the Obama they want to see.

You had the same thing from Obama supporters, at least from before the election until earlier in his presidency. libertarianish independents though Obama wouldn't support such big government as he has, those who look to big government thought Obama would put single payer in place, and otherwise increase socialism to an even greater extent than what he actually has pushed. Those who though we needed a big stimulus thought he would do it, while (some) deficit hawks thought he would be solid in fiscal terms. He could be all things to all people (except strong conservatives, or strong libertarians, but the later were not fans of McCain anyway), until he actually had to make some decisions.



To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (42569)9/10/2010 10:18:14 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Obama's Looking More Like Hoover Than FDR
The Next Hoover
By Jonah Goldberg
September 10, 2010

"Worst president since Hoover."

Democrats have said this at one point or another about every Republican president since, well, Herbert Hoover. That's because Democrats have been waiting for the resurrection of FDR like a cargo cult waiting for one last plane that never comes.


Such wishful thinking rarely pays off. History just doesn't work like that. Lucy will always yank the football away from the Charlie Browns who think history will repeat itself perfectly. Fate, providence - whatever you want to call it - has a better sense of humor than that.

Which is why I'm beginning to think Barack Obama isn't the next FDR - as so many promised - but the next Hoover.

The creation myth of the modern Democratic party goes something like this: After years of capitalist excess, exemplified by Hoover's "market fundamentalism," Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced reasonable and pragmatic reforms that not only conquered the Great Depression but "saved democracy" itself.

Over the last two years, Obama and his defenders have constantly invoked this story to buttress the case for Obama's "new foundation" - his version of a new New Deal.

Whatever the problems with this story - and there are many - the simple fact is that history has happened. We live with the consequences of the New Deal. Its institutions - Social Security, the FDIC, etc. -are all around us, as are the progeny from the Great Society, another effort to replay the New Deal as if it were a new idea.

On liberals' own terms, to argue that we need something like another New Deal or Great Society is to argue that these institutions either don't exist or don't work. But few, if any, liberals say anything like that. Instead, they change the subject. They talk about the Bush years as if they were a cross between a libertarian fantasy and an anarchist dystopia à la Mad Max.

Here's Obama in his Cleveland speech Wednesday, describing the philosophy that defined the Bush years: "Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires. Cut regulations for special interests. Cut trade deals even if they didn't benefit our workers. Cut back on investments in our people and our future - in education and clean energy, in research and technology. The idea was that if we had blind faith in the market, if we let corporations play by their own rules, if we left everyone else to fend for themselves, America would grow and prosper."

What movie was he watching? At best this is a Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot battle between delusion and dishonesty. Rhetorically, Bush never advocated anything like any of this. Indeed, Bush the compassionate conservative described his philosophy thus: "When somebody hurts, government has got to move." More concretely, under Bush we had massive spending increases on education, alternative energy, the National Institutes of Health, and health care. We saw the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and the trade deals Bush pushed are now part of the Obama agenda.

But Obama needs to spout such hogwash in order to sell some very old "new" ideas.

It hasn't worked. Americans understand this isn't 1932 or 1964. Some even understand that many of our problems - housing? entitlements? - stem from the liberal accomplishments of the 1930s and 1960s. Professional liberals, however, remain in denial, insisting they suffer from a "communications" problem or some such nonsense.

At best, the Democrats bet badly on the business cycle. They expected the economy to recover quickly, as it usually does, and when it did they would credit their policies. That didn't happen. The "new foundation" either has hurt the economy or did little to help it. Worse, from the liberal perspective, it further soured voters not just on Democrats but on faith in government generally, which Obama was supposed to restore.

And that's the funny part. For reasons fair and unfair, the Great Depression discredited laissez-faire economics for a generation or more. Hoover, who was hardly the "market fundamentalist" FDR made him out to be, suffered largely from the (bad) luck of the draw, giving Democrats a chance to argue for a new deal of the cards. For reasons fair and unfair, Obama, who inherited a bad recession and made it worse, every day looks more like a modern-day Hoover, whining about his problems, rather than an FDR cheerily getting things done. Inadequate to the task, Obama is discrediting the statism he was elected to restore.

The punch line? When the economy finally rebounds, it might be just in time for Obama's replacement to get all the credit.

realclearpolitics.com



To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (42569)9/7/2012 11:51:35 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Woodward’s devastating account of Obama’s failed leadership
September 6, 2012 | 1:50 pm

Arrogant, aloof, and unprepared is how Bob Woodward portrays President Obama in his new book The Price of Politics, set to be released next week.

The book recounts Obama’s troubled relationship with Congress, from his inauguration through last summer’s failed debt-limit negotiations, with Woodward concluding, “It is a fact that President Obama was handed a .. faltering economy and faced ... Republican opposition. But presidents work their will — or should work their will — on important matters of national business. .?.?. Obama has not.”

Snippets of the book, as reported by The Washington Post, include:

The book portrays Obama as a man of paradoxical impulses, able to charm an audience with his folksy manner but less adept and less interested in cultivating his relationships with Reid and Pelosi. While the president worries that he can’t rely on the two leaders, they are portrayed as impatient with him. As the final details of the 2009 stimulus package were being worked out on Capitol Hill, Obama phoned the speaker’s office to exhort the troops. Pelosi put the president on speakerphone so everyone could hear.

“Warming to his subject, he continued with an uplifting speech,” Woodward writes. “Pelosi reached over and pressed the mute button. They could hear Obama, but now he couldn’t hear them. The president continued speaking, his disembodied voice filling the room, and the two leaders got back to the hard numbers.”

In the same vein, Woodward portrays Obama’s attempts to woo business leaders as ham-handed and governed by stereotype. At a White House dinner with a select group of business executives in early 2010, Obama gets off on the wrong foot by saying, “I know you guys are Republicans.” Ivan Seidenberg, the chief executive of Verizon, who “considers himself a progressive independent,” retorted, “How do you know that?”

Nonetheless, Seidenberg was later pleased to receive an invitation to the president’s 2010 Super Bowl party. But he changed his mind after Obama did little more than say hello, spending about 15 seconds with him. “Seidenberg felt he had been used as window dressing,” Woodward writes. “He complained to Valerie Jarrett, a close Obama aide. .?.?. Her response: Hey, you’re in the room with him. You should be happy.”

ABC News also reports:

As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a “growing feeling of incredulity” as negotiations meandered.

“The administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles,” Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen’s thinking.

Larry Summers, a top economic adviser to Obama who also served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, identified a key distinction that he said impacted budget and spending talks.

“Obama doesn’t really have the joy of the game. Clinton basically loved negotiating with a bunch of pols, about anything,” Summers said. “Whereas, Obama, he really didn’t like these guys.”

Woodward portrays a president who remained a supreme believer in his own powers of persuasion, even as he faltered in efforts to coax congressional leaders in both parties toward compromise. Boehner told Woodward that at one point, when Boehner voiced concern about passing the deal they were working out, the president reached out and touched his forearm.

“John, I’ve got great confidence in my ability to sway the American people,” Boehner quotes the president as having told him.

With the nation facing the very real possibility of defaulting on its debt for the first time in its history, David Krone, the chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told the president directly that he couldn’t simply reject the only option left to Congress.

“It is really disheartening that you, that this White House did not have a Plan B,” Krone said, according to Woodward.

washingtonexaminer.com