ABC had this report from a John McCain fundraiser Saturday night:
“You know, this election is about trust, and trusting people’s word” McCain told a crowd of donors to his campaign. “And unfortunately, apparently, on several items, Sen. Obama’s word cannot be trusted.” McCain’s remark came at the conclusion of a number of examples of what McCain said were Obama’s changes in position. McCain cited a proposal that he and Obama appear together at town hall meetings -– which Obama originally seemed to be in favor of, but has not agreed to yet -– and Obama’s reversal on whether or not to take federal financing for his campaign as signs that Obama’s word could not be trusted.
On rare occasions McCain has personally gone after Obama on an issue of integrity or judgment. But more often than not, and especially at critical junctures like the emergence of Reverend Wright, McCain has shied away from getting his own hands dirty, evidencing a hesitancy to take on his opponent. So does this latest comment by McCain suggest a new tactic, one more consistent with what his campaign staff and surrogates are trying to do (i.e. raise fundamental questions about Obama’s character and judgment)? Or is it an exception, soon to be blunted by some bland comment about his respect and admiration for his foe?
Certainly, a candidate shouldn’t get into a verbal fistfight with his opponent at every turn. But often the candidate himself is the only one to capture the media’s attention on an attack. Moreover, McCain can’t very well step on his own campaign’s lines by rushing to assure the public that he really thinks the world of his opponent. It seems he has the perfect opportunity now to point to Obama’s series of position changes and simply ask which position was the real one and how will we know which one will stick. With the media echoing those same queries McCain can hardly be blamed for calling voters’ attention to the ever-evolving Obama.
And perhaps McCain will feel more at ease on this particular issue than on Reverend Wright, for example. After all, McCain was hardly quite effective attacking on this very issue in the primary against his main opponent, when he declared during a debate:
I haven’t changed my position on even-numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may be running for.
Going after an ill-defined, slippery opponent with gobs of money wasn’t easy. But McCain eventually became his campaign’s most effective needler. It might work again.
Jen, Brooks and Noonan as “center right pundits”
Thanks for the joke.
There was always something Quixotic about Obama’s campaign, jsut as there is about the kind of liberalism that dominates the House of Representatives. They are not about fixing “things” like an economy; they are about righting wrongs, especially of the unrightable kind.
With the economy in shambles, and businesses being urgd to hire, the first thing the Dems do is make it easier for women to sue for pay discrimination. I’m not saying that the old statute of limitations was a good one, but in the scheme of things, as a first priority for people charged with encouraging companies to hire, it was a bizarre choice.
Next comes Obams’s micromanaging bonuses. Another gu who never met a payroll telling boards of directors how much to pay the people they need the most. Doen’t he know that you need your best people most in bad times, that the best people are always in demand, that the best people matter? Obama made such a fuss over the competence of his team, and yet he wants corporate managers to operate under a salary cap.
The liberal Congress wants to follow suit by actually limiting the pay of executives of outfits that take TARP money. After all, anyone making more than than the Pres’s salary (never mind the value of his perks) can get along without the excess, right? Don’t worry about losing that home – it’s too expensive, anyway, and it’s a selle’s market, right? Never mind that many companies in trouble are suffering from fall-out of what others did wrong; if they want our help, they have to be managed by people with no incentive to do their best. To call it stupid would be too mean to the stupid.
And then there’s EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act, as Orwellian a name as any hypocrite ever came up with. Where’s all those experts in the history of the Depression now that we need them? Hasn’t anyone told the Prez that strengthening unions contributed mightily to the collapse of the economy in the 1930s as the increased wages did not create sufficient consumer demand to fund themselves.
People need to get through their heads that there are no universals in economics. Sometimes, raising workers’ pay raises demand and makes everybody rich. Sometimes, raising workers’ pay creates more savings and puts companies out of business. With wealth destroyed and home equity in the tank, common sense suggests that the latter dynamic is at work right now. But there’s an unfair pay distribution to correct, unfair organizing rules to fix, and ending unfairness (making both hands the same in the old joke) is way more important than fixing the economy. Right?
This is pretty much what I expected–at least as far as the Congressional agenda–which is that Obama’s biggest problem would be Pelosi and Reid, not Republicans (I guess that’s not complimentary of either of those parties). Obama has lots of talent at demagoguery and spin, but this is a test of resolve, conviction and making hard choices. So far I am convinced he cares only about his re-election; all the talk of bi-partisanship and change is BS on his part, but this only seems to bother those of us who voted for the other guy.
I think it’s hypocritical in the extreme to bash salaries at private companies, when Congress gets routine raises despite the poor economy, and Obama’s wife had a cush high-paying job that looks like it was a quid-pro-quo deal (now the position has been abolished since the’s moved to The White House of course). He’s just like most every other successful politician. However, the cult of personality seems to be so great that I don’t expect most of his supporters or the MSM to wise up any time soon–they are too sold on and invested in the Obama myth. Thus, we need principled and articulate opposition more than ever.
“t is rather amazing that less than two weeks after he was triumphantly sworn in, the President is getting bad reviews.”
Huh? Bush was being blasted by the left BEFORE his inauguration. Politics is contentious because it is a clash over principles. Post-partisanship is delusional outside of one-party countries, the direction in which Bush’s buffoonery and incompetence set us.
LK:
Great comment! Things that needed to be said – one can only hope they will be harkened as well.
But surely this should have been expected. Obama is not the first executive to be appointed (elected) on the basis of a glib mouth despite an empty resume. And the pattern is not unfamiliar. Inexperienced executives almost always think they can micromanage their way to success. And glib ones compound the problem with endless meetings at which they permit their subordinates to be washed in their golden rhetoric. (“As I’ve said before, and will say again …” is rapidly becoming Obama’s anthem.)
This of us who’ve worked in large organizations have been there and done that. And we know how it all comes out.
I almost added the adverb “unfortunately” to that last sentence. But maybe not. Those who did not support Obama in the last election have been pushing two contradictory concerns: that he is a clever, committed socialist who will lead us to perdition, and that he is a monumentally unqualified “accidental hero” who will do almost nothing, but leave us in a hopeless muddle. I suspect America will survive this period in much better shape if the second view is closer to the truth.
Materialist:
I differ with you only on your last point. Those are not contradictory concerns. Obama is a committed socialist. If he is successful, he will lead us to perdition. At the same time, he is monumentally unqualified and an empty suit. That is where the “clever” aspect of his personality comes in. The man has an extraordinary internal calculator for the ideal spin for any situation. So, these are not contradictory concerns. Rather, they are additive concerns.
I mean, look at this stimulus bill. He could have spent some of his Hawaii vacation working on the bill. But why not let Nancy do it? Sure it’s primarily composed of pork favors for those who bought him, but perhaps the R’s and the rest of America will fall for it — so much the better for O. And, as now, if they don’t, well it’s the R’s fault, or if necessary, it’s Nancy’s fault, and if things really get bad, it’s racism.
Hey. It worked for him in college. It worked for him in law school. And in the Illinois legislature. And in Congress. And on the campaign trail. Why won’t it work now for Gaia’s chosen one?
Once more we’ve been sold a bill of goods without inspecting it. Buyer beware! I personally have lived through this 3 times and I know others for much longer.
The difference between then (Jimmy and Billy) and now is commitment. Jimmy was a well meaning incompetent rube intent on showing the world that he and his merry band of Georgians were smart. Billy, was and is a morally bankrupt person that essentially governed from the center but inflicted on the public a great desire to shower after his speeches. He left the ideological purity bit to his wife.
Barry; on the other hand, combines the worst aspects of his liberal predecessors. He possesses naivete of Carter and the ideological fury of Hillary. No problem is secure from their meddling, no problem simple enough that they won’t make it far worse. Need proof? Exhibits ABCDEFG are the mortgage meltdown and resultant credit crunch. Billy and his ilk expanded Jimmy’s attempt at leveling a playing field by insisting that Banks provide mortgages to everyone regardless of ability to repay the loan. Couple this with loosened oversight by financial Titans Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters and a government sponsored band of creative extortionists; ACORN and we have the present. ACORN used the process to sue banks for not providing loans to citizens and noncitizens and shake down participating institutions when the numbers didin’t meet their approval. Who trained ACORN? Barry! Who didn’t and won’t reveal any of this?
THE MEDIA! Why? Because it doesn’t meet their narative.
The solution to this problem is an informed electorate. Unfortunately the school system being run by the Socialist Teacher’s Union is not about to stray from the party line. Thank God for the internet and sites like Contentions.
#7 Scott,
Obama not only trained ACORN, he sued CitiBank on behalf of ACORN for not giving enough loans that would not be repaid.
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
Here is also a clip where Clinton;s HUD Secretary Cuomo talks about forcing banks to give bad loans because they are deserve not being paid back for being racist or something like that:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/12/the-quotes-that-explain-the-entire-financial-meltdown/
Of course, it is all Bush’s fault.
Materialist -
Thanks for the attaboy. I am not ready to make predictions based on first steps. Bill Clinton’s first days were also marked by stupid priorities. Gays in the military as a first thing? MUST … APPOINT …. WOMAN … AG!!! But Hillary had a fair campaign taunt: What about the ’90′s didn’t you like? The peace or the prosperity? At the end of the day, the Clintons were center-left rather than left-left, and Obama may find his way there, too. He’s not off to good start, but I think there’s a victory-lap mentality that needs to be worked through.
I don’t believe Obama is a “committed socialist.” I think he’s mostly about process and that he is letting Pelosi and his left-wing supporters masturbate before he and the Senate get down to governing. At least I reserve the right to say that later. Considering how the right demands patience before we pass judgment on the Iraq adventure, I would urge them to show the same restraint in trying to judge Obama’s tenure. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t complain about the bad begiinning. How would he know how awful his first moves have been unless someone tells him? But predictions seem to me unwarranted at this stage.
Some wag said of George W. Bush that he was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple. I think the same can be said of Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats. They actually think they did something right to win the 2006 and 2008 elections. All they did was be out of power when the $hit hit the fan. They even lit the fuse at Fannie and Freddie and the CRA, but that’s too arcane to matter. They think the people actually WANT them to implement their wacko ideas, when all the people want is to punish the guys who were holding the potato when the music stopped.
My sense is that these misapprehensions can be corrected by reality. But I could be wrong. I think ESCA will be the acid test. I think it won’t pass, but if it does, I will join those who see us as on the road to perdition and Obama as the unqualified pretty-boy that I am not yet ready to say he is.
*That’s EFCA.
LK:
Thanks for another good comment. While the truth is that we don’t know, I tend to agree with your philosophical assessment of the chosen one. He strikes me as more opportunist than ideologue. In this day and age a leftist policy stance offers very good cover. Look at the media’s kid-glove treatment – that wouldn’t have happened if he’d been to the right of Hill rather than to the left.
I think the same applies to your earlier, astute observation about the dems determination to right wrongs and comfort victims, whatever the cost. To many of them (I think Pelosi is one) this is a matter of personal conviction, so strongly held that she will destroy the economy and her party’s chance of maintaining control of the House before compromising it. But to Barry I think it’s convenient cover And very effective cover, since the true believers have little choice but to put their faith in him. One doesn’t thrive in Daily’s Chicago machine as a man of principle.
If we disagree, it’s that you seem to grant him more competence than I do. Time will tell.
GYL:
You have a perfectly reasonable position, though I tend to agree more with LK, and, beyond him, look for a bit of a “crash and burn” as our hero becomes increasingly frustrated at his inability to succeed on words alone. But it’s early yet. We can only wait and see.
On thing is for sure. We are in trouble.
I agree that Obama is the 2008 equivalent of TV-friendly JFK. Of course, Kennedy would be a Republican today but the election dynamics are similar. I was in college and knew a very level-headed girl who went to a campus Kennedy rally where he spoke (USC) and came back totally committed to him. I don’t know if she became a “jumper” but she was sold by that one exposure. The Obama thing is the moern equivalent. He is “cool” and the kids, and a lot of adults, went bonkers for him and his “message.”
The Democrats in Congress are another generation and are the equivalent (as someone here wrote a day or two ago) of the Czech government after 1968. Colorless, faceless and committed to an orthodoxy that is only now becoming apparent. If Michael Steele is sharp enough and the GOP can get its message right, we could have another 1994 next year. That would probably assure Obama’s second term if he doesn’t make major mistakes in foreign affairs.
Maybe that’s the best we can hope for. The Republicans ruined the brand after Gingrich left. Bush was a disaster in domestic policy except the tax cuts.
Were Alito and Roberts ‘disasters”? No.They were unqualified successes. “No Child Left Behind”, while not perfect, has made for better test scores across the nation to the chagrin of the teacher’s unions. Another domestic success.
Bottom Line: Bush had to compromise a lot domestically to squeeze every last vote out for “Iraq” and the “Surge”. Today, as Iraqi’s vote in droves, in a multi-party , free election, we see the fruits of his correct decision to put many of his eggs in the “Iraq” basket: freedom is contagious and many Arabs are looking at those elections and they are going to want it as well.
I don’t mind when those on the Left bash Bush: I consider those on the Left to be visionless and impatient. The latest NY Times hysterical headline is what they “believe” because it’s written in the language of the “smart”, nice and “nuanced.
But, I don’t like when Republicans sell Bush out considering the unbelievable successes the US has had in the wake of 9/11. Those were tough decisions the president had to make. He made them, stuck with them and we’ve won major victories in the long war that is The West vs. Radical Islam.
If Al Gore or John Kerry had beaten Bush, they would have been doing “outreach” to the Muslim world, as Obama’s doing now INSTEAD of combatting those that want us dead.
Even a year ago, the Democrats and Obama had no idea that they would be bulldozing this “stimulus” bill through Congress. If asked in the not so distant past about their legislative priorities, national health care would have been numero uno, as it is with most of the voters that put an electronic X next to BHO on their presidential ballot. The humongous bailouts of banks, insurance, and auto manufacturers (did the car people actually get one?) justifies a democratic one for the “working family” that also acts as a test run for the truly Frankensteinian creation of national health care. The stimulus will pass but if it doesn’t have immediate and discernable positive effects it will encourage the minority sane element of the electorate to raise questions about the health care scam that the dems may not be able to answer. This whole mad stimulus caper could, in the end, work to the utopians disadvantage.
Hey, materialist@11, so maybe we’re in trouble, but no one said life would be easy, or, if you prefer your lyrical allusions older, I never promised you a rose garden. Anyway, trouble is our middle name…
The Wagyu Administration and the country will be learning just how paltry and empty and even costly such Greatly Meaningful Events, as we were all so Deeply and Profoundly privileged to witness 11 days ago, can look when they come up against all the other differently meaningful facts that make up our political and economic lives. The Greatest Event In History and $1 may in some locales buy you a foreclosed property, but not a cup of coffee. There are still some homely American lessons to be re-learned, in concrete experience, not just abstractly (I believe that’s the first and last lesson). Obama knows how to invoke Americanism, if mostly unconvincingly, but not really how to talk about it, much less practice it. So he and the Snark Generation and the varietous Obamaphiles, Obamanauts, Obamatrons, and Obamacons together will probably need a lot more than a couple of weeks or even a couple of months or even a couple of years to finish and turn in the homework they’ve assigned themselves. (God only knows what extremes of tragedy and farce the teachers will turn up in the essay sections.)
For the rest of us, it’s a very extended and very uncomfortably real version of the nightmare that finds the dreamer, though a middle-aged adult, in grade school again. It’s bad and risky and dangerous and negative and so on, but maybe Freud was right and every dream is the fulfillment of a wish, meaning there’s a bright side, too: Conservatives are feeling young again, even the old dudes, while the opinion elites, their darlings, and all the snarling twentysomethings are now – or at least are turning into – the yesterpeople. You’re right, we’re in trouble. I can’t even begin to guess how much trouble (and I hope you’re doing better than I am!), but life is still good and hope springs eternal.
Great comments on this post. One area where I have to differ–I think Obama is a committed socialist as well as an inexperienced (but could be a fast learner) manager. He had a lot of ”
present” votes in the ILlinois Senate, but they did not disguise an overall very far left voting record. Same thing in the U.S. Senate, where, for instance, he voted against confirming John Roberts, an obvious losing vote, in order to keep with the far left.
He doesn’t know much history or economics, but he knows what he wants and he likes the junk in the stimulus package even if it is not stimulus. He thinks it is very important to force business beyond the point of profitability if that is the way to end the unequal outcomes in hiring he considers “discrimination,” so the Ledbetter law is fine with him. He thinks socializing medicine is top priority, so STD and contraceptive funding is a step in the right direction. The goal is only partially to end the recession.
After all, some results of the recession, such as falling income for the “advantaged,” and increased desperation for government measures for the middle class, are good, from this point of view. In the same way, Carter considered stagflation a warning to all of us to change our ways and have a more conserving, equal society. After all, cutting into savings is a way of taxing the “haves” to give to the “have nots.”
If the recession lingers, and it will if this bill passes, Obama will blame it on Bush, and argue that because of the dire state of the economy we need ever more urgent government takeovers of the private sector.
Anybody been to a Borders or B&N lately? They both have Obama shrines at the front entrances, full of books, photos and trinkets. I did not see anyone lighting candles, but the whole thing looks a little creepy in a book store.
Margo,
It is more than just the inexperience that bothers me. He said the Illinois State Legislature was boring, as are the suburbs. He is not curious because he already knows why rust belters cling to guns and religion. Only someone of superior status can get a message though to him. He seems unable to get out of his intellectual safe zone and seriously engage with the hoi polloi. After all, he has identified many of them as victims who can’t express their true needs.
vb, very true. He doesn’t learn because when you know your ideology and are a thoroughly convinced true believer, what more is there to know? Only the nuts and bolts of making it happen. That’s what he’s working on now, and I do think he will be quick study in that department. Unfortunately.
Oh come on, Republicans, PLEASE filibuster this bill!!
Lawrence K.,
it’s true that the graft stimulus bill is a joke and Obama’s economic policies are just as bad, but most business executives really are grossly overcompensated. Many of them receive annual compensation packages with dollar values that exceed the annual profits posted by the companies they work for. Many of them receive annual salaries in excess of their companies’ posted profits, and they all have plenty of sluttish perquisites to go along with the cash. Even executives who guide their companies into mediocrity or ruin receive exorbitant compensation packages.
It is middle and front line management that generates revenue for most companies. Executives tend to spend it.
Zig:
You may be right – I’m not agreeing, just allowing the possibility – but the cure, government setting executive compensation, is worse than the disease.
One might also argue that the overcompensation of “most” executives is the price we pay for not overcompensating the few who are extraordinarily good at what they do. Moreover, the opportunity to get “overpaid” is precisely the driver that makes many of those who never achieve that level work so hard. The middle and front-line managers of whom you speak are not a static class. They are, for the most part, and especially the best of them, trying to become overpaid senior executives. You seem to be assuming that there is no connection between their output and their goal.
I think the unqual distribution of compensation is a problem only to the extent that the distribution of opportunity is unequal. The election of our first black president atgues against the idea that this is no longer the land of opportunity. That the opportunity is to get richer than anyone needs to be seems to me a relatively minor inefficiency.