Obama '08?

I'm afraid Cyclo that your request to Okie implies his ability to utilize REASON.

Cyclo, You have gone beyond reason yourself by asking okie to be "reasonable."

I wonder about your common sense and logic.

I don't think appearances on the Jay Leno show or even well-intended but regrettable jokes are themselves of any consequence. The appearances in California were designed to reinforce the president's public image at a time when he needed it politically, and were largely successful in achieving that purpose.

However the political need for this diversion rather clearly arises out of something far more serious and possibly dangerous for us all. Here I refer to Obama's apparent inability or unwillingness to lead or even tame the single-issue zealots of his own party - even in areas central to the themes of his campaign. This is what led to the rather absurd "stimulus" legislation that will waste so much public money and debt on payoffs to various Democrat constituency groups, many in direct contradiction to promises and committments he made during the campaign, and is now the source of a stream of embarassing disclosures, contradictions and awkward cover-ups.

Obama is an intelligent man, a gifted communicator and a highly proficient campaigner . However it is simply an observable fact that he is an inexperienced executive and leader. So far he has demonstrated fairly high degrees of amateurism and ineptitude in important areas. In my view his most important failing was his failure to lead and direct the actions of his party in the Congress towards the fulfillment of his own campaign promises at a moment in which he clearly had the political capital to do so and decidedly higher public esteem than the Congress. That moment has now come and gone, and he is now tied to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer . This could have lasting and adverse consequences for him - and us.

In times of adversity people revert to the things they do well - whether they are needed or useful or not. I think that was a factor in the California trip.

The public is now left watching the squirming and evasions of Democrat leaders in the Congress and reminded of the monies they and Obama got in political contributions from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CITIGROUP, AIG and others. The Democrat Congress is even organizing obviously unconstitutional (and prectically unworkable) legislation to seize the AIG bonuses (but save those of Merril Lynch), and other such absurdities. We will likely get the threatened confrontation with Canada and Mexico over the NAFTA treaty much sooner than most expected.

The real calamity in all of this is that the central issue of the day, our liquidity crisis, has not yet been addressed, even though totally unprecedented sums have been authorized for largely useless projects and programs taken from the wish lists of various Democrat constituent groups. These expenditures will temporarily ease the pain of recession in some quarters, but do nothing to address the cause which continues. Worse they threaten our future ability to capitalize a recovery.

You ask me what he should be doing differently, and then you tell me I cannot suggest Republican policies? Be serious, cyclops.

Here is a list for starters, not complete list by any means.

Stay in Washington for a while, and actually do some work. Quit blaming the previous administration for everything.

Endorse free markets and capitalism, and for now, quit pushing more social agendas, after all, we have an economic crisis to fix first. When I say endorse free markets and capitalism, I realize he has done that, but people don't buy it because they don't believe him. So I am not sure he can change his basic beliefs, and so I am not sure Obama is capable of doing what I want him to do. It will probably take a different president.

Be realistic with foreign policy, do not coddle dictators, and do not compromise our national security.

Return to a realistic energy policy, admit that wind and solar is going to do virtually nothing to solve the problem. Get going on nuclear power.

Forget cap and trade, card check, and a host of other nonsensical programs.

That would be a start.

okie, can you say "blue sky demagoguery?"

I think you are being a bit unfair.

okie gave us a list of specific and concrete suggestions. Some are simply inimical to stated Democrat/Obama plans, and arguably merely distracting. However, all are defensible, and many address as yet unsolved challenges before us.

The underlying premise is that Obama has been very long on lofty promises but deficient so far in addressing them. Moreover he has needlessly allowed so many wasteful and distracting Democrat pet issues to intrude on his legislative program that he now threatens our ability to carry out the central issues in his campaign - and all without yet sufficiently addressing the liquitity crisis before us.

I think these are real, palpable, and serious issues. Obama claques willl surely ignore them and merely continue their applause. However serious people - of both political persuasions - will address them. Which are you?

dys, I doubt very much okie sees any "blue sky." He's a demagogue without any real suggestion on how to fix this crisis, but is ready to fault Obama at every point. okie's suggestions has no basis in reality, because his assumptions about "free trade and capitalism" is the current reality. What exists today are the result of both democratic and republican administrations and congress. Any change from current trade agreements requires the same process. Our country will remain a "free trade and capitalistic" country. okie's fear-mongering only shows how out of touch he is with the real world.

georgeob wrote:

If those are "specific and concrete," then he needs to answer the when and how?

Generalities are useless without the detail; it's what okie continues to complain about the Obama track.

You're adding ideas that was not part of okie's post such as "sufficiently addressing the liquidity problem." I challenge your statement, because Bush got $700 billion to help fix the liquidity problem, and in less than two months, Obama has added billions more to banks and finance companies to loosen some of that money to consumers and small businesses. They have also dropped mortgage rates to make it more affordable for more families to buy homes with a $8K credit on their income tax returns as a first time buyer.

What is it about Obama's plans do you disagree with about the liquidity problem he is faced with?

interesting question georgeob, what do you think?

I think you are a serious person who can't resist the opportunity to take a cute shot - more or less like me. No, ... on reflection, more than me.

Obama must be a commie - see this Russian advertisement for an icecream

All of the issues I raised are obvious. The guy that is really not serious is Obama, example, energy, his energy policy is unrealistic. I challenged ci to show where wind and solar would wean us off of cartel oil in 10 years, as Obama promised, and nothing in response, nothing, because he has nothing of substance to post, the energy plan is worthless. Just one example of many. Obama's deficits are now projected by the government to be trillions, far more than he projects. The fact is this administration is totally unrealistic. Obama would rather be on the Leno show and bet on the Final Four.

okie, Nothing by themselves will wean us off of oil/gas. Get real.

Better than your plan to get us off oil, which is, nothing at all.

Cycloptichorn

Wrong again, as usual. I would have expanded nuclear 30 years ago, and we would not have been in this situation. I would expand wind and solar, but I would not kid the people and tell them it is the solution, it is only a small part of the solution. The solution requires expanding nuclear in a rather dramatic fashion, drilling in ANWR, offshore, encouraging both oil and natural gas production, providing energy credits to companies and individuals, etc. There would be other aspects to the plan, but it would incorporate elements that would not cripple the economy, and that would move us forward, incrementally.

Tell Obama that then, because he keeps telling us that, starting back in the debates. Apparently you don't read my posts, you simply make your cute comments, which I have begun to give thumbs down on 3/4 of them, so I don't have to read stuff that adds no information to the subject here.

okie, Your info are mostly garbage; it has no common sense or reality. You dream up ideas in your own head, and spew them on a2k as if they have some valuable info. Knock yourself out by giving me a thumbs down; I'll just keep challenging your idiotic posts that doesn't have any evidence to support them.

Why should I tell Obama anything? You are free to do so.

wow. are they still trying to do it that way?

gee, that was the plan that the republicans put forward when i was in high school, over 30 years ago.

Here is a challenge I would love to see Obama accept, and get his ass handed to him ...

http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/20/special-olympics-champ-to-barack-bring-it-on/



Having posted that, I will say that Obama's comment to Leno about the Special Olympics was stupid, but it was not bigoted or mean in any way, IMHO.

He was trying to joke about his own lack of talent for bowling and just made a gaffe.
Do I think Bush would have been crucified for making the same statement?
Yes, I do.

However, Obama said it, not Bush.

It was a stupid, ill thought out comment, but in no way was it meant to be insulting or mean.

You are not up to speed on Freud regarding slips of the tongue mm.