We’re less than two weeks into the administration of President Barack Obama, and we are already seeing that it will, indeed, be an exceptional time in our history.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an administration make so many exceptions for its own rules and promises so quickly.
During the campaign, Obama constantly denounced the corrosive role lobbyists play in governance. He vowed that no lobbyists would have any place in his administration.
Unless, of course, he really, really needed them.
So far, he has chosen to waive the rule for former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn, who is nominated to be Deputy Defense Secretary, and former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson, who is to be Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s Chief of Staff.
Obama also promised that his administration would be the most ethical in history. That apparently provoked pangs of conscience in two of his nominees, the aforementioned Mr. Geithner and Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Tom Daschle, who suddenly discovered they had hefty tax violations that needed to be paid up posthaste.
Mr. Daschle very nearly ran up against the lobbyist problem, too, but he dodged it because he isn’t a lobbyist, his wife is. And that also very nearly caused trouble when Mr. Daschle was the Democratic leader in the Senate, but the couple delicately cleaved to the letter of the law: Mrs. Daschle only lobbied the House.
President Obama also signed an executive order that banned the U.S. from torturing prisoners. But that order had numerous exceptions and loopholes and omissions, rendering it virtually meaningless — it only applies to prisoners taken during armed conflict, only the CIA has to close up its secret prisons, and the term “torture” is never defined.
During the campaign, Obama spoke about the need to conserve energy: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” But last week it was explained why Obama was working in the White House without his jacket on — the thermostat was cranked up a bit, well above 72 degrees.
In an odd way, this sort of thing is actually a good sign. It shows a level of maturity and pragmatism in the administration, traits that were sorely lacking in a campaign filled with lofty, empty rhetoric and idealistic, unrealistic promises.
The unanswered question is how those who fervently believed in these things — and invested all their hopes and dreams when they voted for Obama — will react to these “betrayals.”
umm, the public HAS noticed…you’re asking a different question: when will the public sentiment demonstrably change now that they’ve noticed? will they hold the charismatic new president accountable for the annihilation of trillions and a bold plunge into uncertainty? or will they blame the mean old white rethuglicans for the tumult?
i think it’s a good thing that the public mood errs on the side of patience and away from mobocracy…
moreover, obama is a more appealing figure than either pelosi, reid or – yes – rush limbaugh…
however, we’re still in that first 100 days period and while it may not be a honeymoon, it ain’t gonna be the heartbreak kid either…obama is making a multitrillion dollar bet that his personal popularity will see him through the current contremps…my bet is that an unexpected event – not economy-related – will really test the character of the ‘no drama obama’ administration …
….obama may have year of a crap economy where his charm might work; how he is seen as credibly responding to the unexpected will be what the public will follow…. i look forward to the polls in 90 days seeking to establish how ‘honest’ obama is seen to be…how ‘ethical’ his administration is….and how highly regarded he is as a ‘new kind’ of politician…
…those polls may give his opposition more than a little hope….
What people will see is that their 401Ks aren’t coming back in a meaningful way that job growth is very sluggish and that Obama is in charge. Many will connect the dots and punish the Democrats. Pretty obvious stuff and I’ve been pounding it ad nasium. The trouble is that, as I’ve also said far too many times is that serious and perhaps permanent damage will be done. Punishing Democrats doesn’t mean that they will loose the House, Senate or the White House. Even if they do, and given the cramp this agendy will put on the economy the opportunity might very well be there (Dow 10,000 or even 11,000 and unemployment at 7% in 2012 will not bee good for Democrats) the Republicans will need organization, talent and luck to take advantage. Even if they do, it is unlikely in the extreme that they will do so in sufficiently robuts numbers to actually reverse aforementioned damage.
“skilled speaker” like expert reading on a telepromter?
No Longer any doubt that hope and change is just a piece of crap.
What’s that phrase…counting chickens before they’re hatched. I think blaming labeling someone as a failure after only 5 weeks on the job correcting the mess that’s been in the works for decades, with help from both parties creating it, may…may be a bit premature and reveal more about your desire, your hoped-for reality.
Granted your point about the current budget and its bi-partisan load of earmarks from last year is well-taken. And what a grand moment it would be if he were to veto it. But then again, I don’t recall you railing about the abuses of the earmark system from 2001 on until now. Particularly from 2001 through 2006 when GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the WH and the compassionate conservative President, the same president y’all try to distance yourself from now, pretending never to have met, never vetoed a single budget sent to him.
Rest easy. It’s only 5 weeks into the new administration. You don’t want to run out of steam.
Years ago, when I was a Democrat and George Bush was embarking on a series of big tax cuts, I remember writing a concerned letter to the editor that got published in the L.A.TImes. It was full of earnest worry about the imminent collapse of our way of life — I predicted race riots, food shortages , pandemonium. Taxes, I reasoned, are easy to lower and nigh impossible to raise.
Interestingly, none of that happened. Bush’s taxes did not destroy our way of life. Things pretty much muddled along as usual. We recovered from the dot.com crash and the economic turmoil surrounding 9/11 faded and ended up prosperous, in spite of the horribly expensive war in Iraq that was supposed to break us.
Why do I mention this? Because I find myself feeling just the same way about Obama’s punitive tax hikes and pricey domestic agenda paid for by sky-high debt. It feels like we’re on the brink of economic catastrophe, a socialist nightmare of civil servants feeding off a dwindling supply of wealth-creating entrepreneurs. John Galt will move to the Philipinnes.
But what if I’m wrong again? What if our country is like the camel, able to adapt to a range of extreme climates? Capable of thriving under liberal and conservative leadership? We’re about to find out.
Hey Jen
Pry your lips off of Rove’s butt for a few minutes and save some love for Rush!!
The stimulus is one thing, monstrosity that it is, but opposition to it is basically on philosophical grounds, because it’s an addition except for the taxpayer. No money is being taken from programs. Nuevo Keynesians, utopians and big government types like it, others look forward to the money or hate it because they know it’s wrong. The 2010 budget is another thing altogether. It has features scattered all through it that reduce government spending in some areas and raise it in others. Big farmers, always more influential than their numbers deserve, are already up in arms. Energy companies see changes that they don’t favor. Major modifications to health care will be a battle. It’s easy to give money away. It’s a lot harder to rein in spending. The honeymoon will be over when the new budget starts getting hashed out.
JR,
“Conservatives wonder aloud and fret: when will the public notice? Implicit in the nervous chatter is the fear that somehow the public will be duped, won’t notice the further deterioration of the economy, and will return to the same one-party rule in 2010 and 2012. Or perhaps the economy will overcome almost insurmountable odds, get better in time and allow the Democrats to “claim credit.” Well, none of that bespeaks a movement or a group of people with much confidence in their own perspective.
It’s not confidence in our perspective which we lack but dismay at a ‘rigged’ game.
One in which academia indoctrinates, the ‘entertainment’ industry elevates style over substance, while cloaking sheer partisanship as all that is ‘right and good’ and in which 95% of the MSM deceitfully act as the propaganda organ of the democratic party and liberal/leftist causes. All of which is being orchestrated by highly influential organizations in society that are supposed to attempt to be objective and non-partisan. “Supposed’ because to do otherwise is for them to actively do a grave disservice to the society of which they are a part.
We ‘fret’ because they’ve already duped the public, are trashing the economy and, for at least two years, already have one party rule…
What that is, is ‘facing’ reality.
It’s not ‘fretting’ to realize that there is a real chance that they will continue the deception with the same charade of obfuscations that have worked in the past: endless repetition of the liberal party line, dishonest reportage better known as agenda journalism, continued indoctrination in our schools that seeks to extend that indoctrination into ever earlier grades and blaming everything on the evil republican’s and their satanic leaders Bush/Chaney/Rove/Palin/Limbaugh, etc.
It’s not ‘fretting’ to recognize the accelerating attempts to make the ‘rich’ pay for everything, while moving forward toward nationalizing banks, big business and healthcare.
It’s not ‘fretting’ to recognize that the ‘rich’ are necessary to the creation of a privately controlled, investment pool of wealth and the absolutely critical necessity of those wealth funds to economic growth. “There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.”
Margaret Thatcher
It’s not ‘fretting’ to proclaim that European style socialism will destroy the very freedoms that made America the land of the free.
It’s not ‘lack of confidence’ when conservatives point out that Obama’s foreign policy’s will result in a less safe world for American’s and freedom loving people’s across the world.
Conservatism is a political philosophy that aligns itself with eternal principles. Any conservative worthy of the name, never lacks confidence in their ‘perspective’ because their confidence is not grounded in personal whim but principles that are not only ‘self-evident’ but which have withstood the trials and tribulations of the past.
With respect, you can’t really say at once that our policies would get the economy humming again while the Obama policies being put in place are sure to wreck the economy and also conclude that if the economy improves with the Obama policies in place it will be sheer luck. That is the equivalent of a lefty saying that the surge was a bad policy that suceeded despite the idiotic decision to do it. The truth is, either proposition might be correct, but neither one is a winner politically. Bottom line: if the economy is still in the crapper this time next year Obama’s positives will be much, much, lower. If the economy rebounds he will get the credit. ’tis how things work.
“I don’t recall you[conservatives] railing about the abuses of the earmark system from 2001 on until now. Particularly from 2001 through 2006 when GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the WH and the compassionate conservative President, the same president y’all try to distance yourself from now, pretending never to have met, never vetoed a single budget sent to him.”
Goggle it. There have been plenty of conservatives who have been publicly furious with Bush and the republicans over profligate spending for both of his terms.
There are many here, including myself, who do not distance ourselves from Bush at all. I think he was a great President and of course a man with flaws that inevitably led to his making mistakes.
I’ll take the good with the bad with Bush because when it came to the greatest priority, the WoT, he essentially got it right and, he did all that anyone could do.
It’s true that he never vetoed a single budget. Despite appearances, that’s not a reflection of gutlessness or lip service in name only to small government. That’s a reflection of the political reality he faced. Every President only has so much political capital, Bush spent ALL of his in the WoT.
Given his evisceration in the liberal press, world ‘opinion’ and by the democrats… he had no choice if he was to keep the country safe, given his set of perceptions and beliefs as to the nature of the enemy we face. It’s fair to disagree with his assessment but disingenuous to suggest he could effectively govern while conducting what would of necessity been an ongoing ‘scorched earth’ political fight.
No one’s insisting that you like Bush or even not judge him harshly due to a reasoned, factual disagreement. We are saying that he should be judged fairly.
jdp … The market is looking forward. And what do they see? Cap and Tax. Tax policies that will hurt business. A Federal Debt that could hurt the dollar and put a squeeze on private lending.
Nationalization is an ugly word, and is thrown out casually. Nationalizing the Auto industry looks like Yugos. Nationalizing banks means putting ACORN on the board. Nationalizing healthcare means cost controls over quality and innovation.
And that’s just the domestic aspects of Obama’s plans
#5,
Yes, we are about to find out.
America can and has thrived under liberal and conservative leadership.
There are factual reasons however in making the assertion that this administration and congress are not only far to the left of any one that has come before but that the changes they wish to make are so fundamentally opposed to the operational principles that have guided this nation that should they be implemented, the day will come when we shall awaken to realize that we are ‘not in America anymore’.
As example:
Environmental regulations are nearing implementation that will effectively bankrupt the coal industry, the major source of electrical generation for the country. Ready for a 3-4 times increase in your electrical bill? Many households are ‘all-electric’.
Increased taxes upon American business, already the most heavily taxed in the world, which will absolutely be reflected in higher consumer costs and reduced jobs. Further reducing American competitiveness and ensuring the acceleration of American business to other nations, many of whom are lowering business taxes, making the disadvantage American firms face even greater.
Environmental regulations that place an even greater burden upon American auto manufacturers.
The removal of oil & natural gas companies tax breaks, which deserved or not will result in higher prices and increased dependence upon foreign oil.
Much higher taxes upon the wealthy, effectively reducing the investment pool of capital available for economic growth.
The nationalization of health care which will institutionalize who you may have as your doctor, where they may practice, and what treatments you will be permitted to obtain, with the aged told that they have to make way and die and, ‘do it quickly’.
Financial reparations for ALL minorities, to essentially be paid in perpetuity.
A level of debt placed upon our children and children’s children, that may be unsustainable.
But of one thing you may be assured, if Obama gets his way, the America he leaves will be free… in name only.
rk – I don’t dispute what you’re saying. I think the economic policies being put in place are horrible, although I’m more worried about the social policies that will surely follow. But I really think that if the economy should buck up in a year or two Obama could breeze to reelection whether his policies helped or hurt the recovery. Going onto a different tangent, I’ll predict that there will be a “right to die” that will become a “duty to die” before some who are reading this blog perish.
———————
“the day will come when we shall awaken to realize that we are ‘not in America anymore”
———————
Unfortunately, that’s not true. The changes put in place by this administration and congress will come to be accepted as the norm, just as the social programs of the New Deal and the Great Society came to be regarded as a baseline. There will be no retreat from Social Security, ony additions. Medicair and Medicade are here to stay. This is the curse of the conservative position, at least in a democratic society. Government will continue to grow, assume more and more responsibility, and dominate our lives in every way until some totally cataclysmic event occurs that reduces society to its most basic elements. Then the process will start all over again. All conservatives can do now is try to keep the utopians from going completely off the deep end.
#14,
“The changes put in place by this administration and congress will come to be accepted as the norm, just as the social programs of the New Deal and the Great Society came to be regarded as a baseline.”
I would argue that shall only be true if the republicans manage to block enough of the liberal democratic agenda so as to make it incremental. (As the frog can be boiled alive if you put him in cold water and then turn up the heat gradually but if you throw him into hot water, he jumps out.)
The democrats are turning up the heat very high indeed and so far, there is little the republicans can do. If Obama fails it will be because his reach exceeds his grasp, turns up the heat too far and the American people end up throwing the bums out..
“government will continue to grow, assume more and more responsibility, and dominate our lives in every way until some totally cataclysmic event occurs that reduces society to its most basic elements.”
That may well be true and if so it certainly supports Socrates’ theory of democracy’s fatal weakness:
How Democracies Become Tyrannies by Ed Kaitz
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_democracies_become_tyranni.html
excerpt:
“Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?
The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato’s Republic…
the deeper theme of the Republic is the [true]nature of education and the relationship between education and the [very]survival of the state…
In the Republic, …[Socrates shows] that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: “The state is man writ large.”
Near the end of the Republic Socrates …[shows] what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children… [for ironically] without proper moral conditioning, a regime’s [country's] “defining principle” will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.
(freedom without responsibility becomes tyranny)
For Socrates, democracy’s “insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things” end up putting it “in need of a dictatorship.” The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. (sound familiar?)
The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. (just what happened with the baby boomer generation) Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant.
Says Socrates: “Extreme freedom can’t be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city [or country].”
So it turns out that a man born more than 400 yrs before Christ has something profoundly important to say to us.
Nor was he the last; in early America, Alexis de Tocqueville presciently observed, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
Expect to see claims of moderation, promises of moderation, but disillusion yourself of any hope of change of course. Obama is no rich boy, like Ayers, who found Socialism in college. Aware, since early childhood of his parens dedication to Communism, and obsessed by the tragedy of his father’s failure to succeed in his dream of a Communist Kenya, he has devoted his life to Socialist activism of the most radical kind. He lied throughout his campaign, and, with the complicity of press and TV, was almost completely able to hide his record. He was never vetted. His campaign was a total scam.
And he WON! With full control of Congress he has launched an Alinsky style, full press assault on Capitalist economics and free market principles. He has no intention of making any concessions or moderations, regardless of public reaction or a decline in his support within his own party. What would he gain from “moderation”? Why should be bothered when his opposition is helpless? Or with faking bi-partisanship? His strategy is to get as much collectivist legislation and welfare state administration in place, as quickly as possible, depending on his “inspirational” oratory to hold back rising protest and maintain the Republicans in a state of futile fury. His dream is to create as much damage to our political and economics. and make as many changes in our Constitution, as possible in the next two years
Speculation on moderation is pointless. Gather resources and start planing to make the most of the inevitable backlash, to ensure that the 2010 elections are an Anti-Obama purge, a loss of theDemocratic hold on the Congress.