Rio may have gotten the Olympics regardless of President Obama’s ill-advised junket to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Chicago did not even make the first round and it was Barack Obama himself along with Mayor Daley’s Chicago machine that caused the stinging humiliation.
Kai Holm, a former Olympics committee member, told the newspaper (translated): “The fact that Barack Obama came, could not do it. I think we lacked emotion, it seemed too empty and business-like. So when Tony Blair promoted London he was around three days to lobby and talk to people. You can not just come with the train one day and try to affect everything. People have felt that it was a lack of respect for the Olympics and sport in general. I think people felt it was too business-like to get into the way we have now seen it many times, and you would have feelings back.”
Obama came across as the classic ugly American who arrogantly swept in thinking he and Chicago were entitled to take the prize simply on Obama’s mystical powers of persuasion. Obama wrongfully thought that jetting in on Air Force One giving a speech then quickly jetting out would be enough to woo the IOC into submission. Was he ever wrong.
This inexperienced President missed the first rule of negotiations. Never send the the President to seal a deal unless you know beforehand it’s a done deal. Since Obama has never run anykind of organization he and his staff were unaware of this basic tenant or too arrogant to think about it.
The Olympics does not reach the level of negotiating with Iran or North Korea on nuclear weapons but you can bet these countries are encouraged by the real or perceived weakness of Barack Obama and thus the President’s humiliating failure has severely damaged the prestige and credibility of the United States.
Advise to IOC members, watch your kneecaps.
#1 by Glenden Brown on October 3, 2009 - 9:22 am
Are you actually this simple Ken? Or are you such a partisan hack you are incapable of understanding there’s a larger context than you and other right wingers hating Barack Obama?
The the Olympics are about international cooperation and since 2001, the US has started two wars and crashed the world financial system.
The US has hosted the Olympics four times in recent decades – 1980, 1984, 1996 and 2002. Last time a US city got the Olympics (that would be Salt Lake) there was a major bribery scandal and ten members of the IOC were kicked out; that’s not exactly an image the IOW wishes to present to the world.
The Olympics have never been held in South America. Brazil is an emerging economic power, a thriving, multicultural nation. They deserve the Olympics in ways we simply do not at this time. Which is really a shame, when you think about it.
Then of course your analysis is deeply and profoundly simplistic and flawed. The Olympics are a zero sum game – if Rio gets it, no other city does. Not getting the Olympics in Chicago does not, contrary to your lunatic claims, make the US look weak.
Negotiating with other nations isn’t a zero sum game. The Bushista approach of chest thumping you seem to think works was an absolute failure. It produced a nuclear North Korea. It pushed Iran to accelerate its nuclear program. We can negotiate with North Korea and Iran and Russia and we can productively engage them without belligerence, without calling them evil. North Korea is a perfect example – it’s easy to dismiss their leader as a nutter, but he is comprehensible and his actions make sense. He saw the US invade Iraq and realized we would never have done that if they’d actually had nuclear weapons. So he built some. OTOH, throughout the 1990s, the Clinton administration talked with North Korea and kept them from building nuclear weapons. It’s not tough to understand. Except apparently for right wingers like you.
#2 by James Farmer on October 3, 2009 - 9:27 am
Ken:
You may have a point. But I still find it difficult to give your commentary much more than a passing glimpse given how incredibly wrong, wrong and wrong you were re the Bush administration and its disastrous policies. Indeed, to merely say you were “wrong” is like giving you a friendly slap on the back when you deserve nothing less than a jackboot kick in the head.
Oh well, at least this decision by Obama will not result in 4,500 dead military persons, tens of thousands severely injured military persons, and hundreds of thousands of dead innocent Iraqis.
Take your pathetic drivel over to RedState for consumption by the stupid and susceptible!
#3 by Richard Warnick on October 3, 2009 - 10:16 am
President Obama made a simple calculation. Chicago’s bid wasn’t the front-runner by any means, but if Obama did not go when Brazil’s president went, then what would they say? I like the bias for action over inaction.
Here’s why the USA lost out, and will continue to lose out: Bush’s “fortress America” visa policy that treats every visitor to this country as a potential terrorist.
I think the most significant thing that happened in Copenhagen was President Obama’s short meeting with General McChrystal. I’d like to know more about that.
#4 by Ken Bingham on October 3, 2009 - 10:36 am
I agree that Rio would have gotten it with or without Obama, however the fact it wasn’t even close was the IOC thumbing their nose at the United States and I do not think it would have been as severe if Obama didn’t show up with a sense of entitlement like Kai Holm suggested.
Also I do not hate Obama. I disagree with his policies. I do not wish him ill will.
#5 by Cliff Lyon on October 3, 2009 - 11:49 am
Ken, Nothing in your last comment is about policy. It is about finding reasons to validate your dislike of Obama.
You guys will take anything he does and twist it to validate otherwise un-defined, un-substantiated, and indefensible criticisms of Obama.
Had Obama not gone to Copenhagen when ALL the other Heads of Nations in the running were there, you would have said,
“Obama is so arrogant and entitled, he doesn’t have to show up. Its disrespectful, no wonder we lost.”
I think you distrust Obama because you didn’t vote for him and you think he doesn’t like you. Lets be honest, he has had to endure with insecure, opinionated white boys all his life, with a smile on his face.
You know darn well, like all successful Black men, Obama has also had to be nice to white guys who really are racist and insecure about the fact that he is better, smarter, more successful whatever.
You MUST question if Obama really likes you Ken. He can certainly read what you’ve been saying all these years. He (we) can certainly put you in the category of the “enemy.” So now surprise right?
I put myself in your shoes, and I can see why you might keep saying “I don’t hate Obama”. I believe you. We both know that if Obama met you, he would like you. How could he not? You are like a big cuddly, gentle bear.
#6 by Ken Bingham on October 3, 2009 - 12:13 pm
Cliff
And if I was to meet Obama I would be very respectful and as a person I would not have any dislike at all for him. It’s like when I met Rocky Anderson. I was joking around with him and was actually pretty thrilled to meet him. The same would be for Barack Obama. It’s political not personal.
Somehow I doubt you could ever do the same for George W Bush.
#7 by Bill Schroader on October 3, 2009 - 3:27 pm
I’m musing by juxtaposing the ’swagger’ of GWB vs the swagger of BHO. No wonder conservatives tend to enjoy seeing him slapped down. 8 years of beating down GWB and making mention of his swagger in every instance, it’s little wonder conservatives actually take some satisfaction of a first round defeat.
Believe me, most conservatives were confident that Chicago must have had it in the bag. How else would you explain the president inserting himself into the bid if he wasn’t confident of a win. Turned out to be a political blunder.
But hey, GWB never came under such “damned if you do damned if you don’t” scrutiny! :p
#8 by Richard Warnick on October 3, 2009 - 3:41 pm
President Bush had “swagger”? I’d describe him the way they do in Texas: “all hat and no cattle.”
#9 by Bill Schroader on October 3, 2009 - 3:42 pm
One other question. When does Obama own anything? When does he own this ecconomy? When does he own the wars that he’s promised to bring to an end? When does he own the poor selections and sloppy vetting of his newly appointed czar positions?
Nearly 10 months into his administration and for all it’s failings, BHO isn’t responsible for any of them! Go figure!
#10 by Cliff Lyon on October 3, 2009 - 4:58 pm
Ken,
You know me well.:)
#11 by Cliff Lyon on October 3, 2009 - 5:01 pm
Yeah Bill? Why dont you tell US? When DOES BHO own the economy?
#12 by Richard Warnick on October 3, 2009 - 5:03 pm
Bill–
I’m unhappy with a number of Obama administration policies but nothing he’s done so far qualifies as a failure. And of course, nothing begins to compare with the Bush administration’s unbroken string of large-scale catastrophes.
We are waiting for Republicans to admit President Bush’s responsibility re: 9/11 attacks that “no one anticipated”; failure to defeat al-Qaeda; illegal and disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq; unconstitutional policies such as the unitary executive, suspension of habeas corpus and warrantless surveillance of Americans; failure to help while Hurricane Katrina victims waited ten days without food or water, as the whole nation watched on CNN; the misbegotten so-called “surge” that took critical reinforcements away from Afghanistan; failure to re-build New Orleans, etc.
And then there’s the Big One. Eight years of destructive economic polices, job losses, rising poverty, and increasing income inequality — leading to the doubling of the National Debt, the worst world economic collapse since the Great Depression, and an unconscionable bailout for Wall Street billionaires.
When the Republicans take responsibility for all that, then we can discuss President Obama’s mistakes.
#13 by anonymous on October 3, 2009 - 6:06 pm
For the reality of political tabulating, a president owns what is going on, economic, foreign policy, domestic problems, the moment they are sworn in.
Anyone saying Obama does not own the whole show in its entirety by now is a partisan, and carrying our incompetent president’s water. He was a stone idiot for huckstering for Chicago as an Olympic venue, nothing to be gained. Who is advising this guy?
Anyone looking back to the good old days of Bush, when nothing was a Democrat’s fault and now using this fond recollection of why Obama doesn’t suck, is a partisan as well. The leaning on past republican failures in the face of this useless man,, our leader is going to be a sad broken record of a broken administration. This show is on its way out.
The way it’s going Obama looks like a carny with the only game that isn’t rigged at the fair. He loses, step right up..
#14 by Richard Warnick on October 3, 2009 - 6:19 pm
Hey anonymous–
President Obama won election with 52.9 percent of the popular vote. His approval rating is currently 53 percent.
#15 by anonymous on October 3, 2009 - 6:28 pm
Dream on, he is being propped by the media. His presidency is as much as a failure as bush’s. I don’t encounter many people that are for what he is doing, and I travel quite a bit. He is over Richard, and you know it as well. You are either of a rather positive bend or are simply not getting out much.
#16 by James Farmer on October 3, 2009 - 6:51 pm
Anon (Glenn?):
Just to humor you, why is Obama’s presidency a failure after ten months? Try being precise in your response and keep your usual gobbledygook to a minimum … please … try.
PS. You obviously do not have money in the stock market.
#17 by anonymous on October 3, 2009 - 7:27 pm
People made plenty of money during Bush’s terms in the market. This has nothing to do with the president anyway. It is congress that been borrowing up money and building massive debt.
If you still have money in the market that is your problem. Only players and fools have money left in market, besides the market won’t get you a job, those market profits sure aren’t being made from products and services from the US.
To the extent that a president’s power is the bully pulpit and foreign policy, this presidency is in any description off to a bad start in what will be a one term show.
So briefly, in the realm he has any power over, foreign policy, he is escalating one failed war, reneging on promises to end another, and being played a chump wherever he goes on his apology tour internationally. We are now violating he airspace of one more sovereign country, Pakistan. Who would have thought Obama could one up Bush?
#18 by James Farmer on October 3, 2009 - 9:17 pm
Anon:
Is the above comment your clear, concise response to how Obama is a failure of a president after ten months in office? Obama is a failure for “escalating” a war in Afghanistan, when the generals on the ground are pleading for more troops to accomplish what Bush could have done had he not forayed into an illegal war in Iraq?
Come on, you can do better than that, cannot you? I would call you a pathetic coward but, I suspect you already know that is exactly what you are!
#19 by anonymous on October 3, 2009 - 9:48 pm
Yes James. The failure will compound itself.
Unfortunately this isn’t grade school and we can’t just kick him off the team. He can have the ball taken away, and this will be what happens in the midterm elections.
Why would Bush escalate in Afghanistan? Better yet, why would anyone? After all it wasn’t Osama that claimed to have attacked the Trade towers on 911 was it? The evidence surely isn’t there. He (Osama) took no credit for it, only commended those that actually did the deed. By his statements, it wasn’t Al Queda. So now we are in Afghanistan for what purpose James?
Take some time, you are going to need it.
#20 by Ken on October 3, 2009 - 11:33 pm
One fatal flaw with Obama is he actually believes his own fawning press coverage.
The Obama controlled press, ie everything except Fox News and Talk Radio, has told us that the world loves Obama. I think after the IOC debacle that may not be the case.
#21 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 12:02 am
Ken:
The world was ecstatic to see Bush out of office and Obama in. You are deluding yourself, however, if you think the world was ever poised to accept Obama as its leader. Stop blowing smoke out your ass.
#22 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 12:04 am
Anon (Glen):
You have yet to make your case why Obama is a failure. Your uninformed rambling drivel is really quite pathetic, too.
#23 by Uncle Rico on October 4, 2009 - 7:13 am
So what Bush did instead was escalated in Iraq even though Saddam Hussein disclaimed any responsibility for 911 and we in fact had no evidence to conclude otherwise. And conservatives everywhere cheered loudly.
#24 by Phil Carter on October 4, 2009 - 7:14 am
Good James. If you cannot see that this man cannot even lead his own party let alone the country, I cannot help you.
Let us just put this into context. In a parliamentarian system a leader that cannot count on how his backbenchers vote(in our case Congress), or cannot either coerce or convince members of his own party to vote in step in his plans will encounter a vote of no confidence very quickly, and be replaced. Or his party loses control of the government. This is failure in political definition, and Obama is all that. With complete party control Obama cannot get his party to vote for the crap that he wants in a reliable majority. This is failure.
Good for you too James, you have spelled drivel right and correctly used it in a sentence, your usual dribble would be well, a failure.
#25 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 7:26 am
Rico, an assessment of the geo-olitical reasons for invading Iraq would be necessary for you to understand the why of the event, and even then it would only be speculative. Think outside given reasons everyone sees on TV. Think for yourself.
Who benefitted from the war? The US State increased control ar home(Patriot Act). Israel thought it would see one its enemies destroyed by its big dummy friend and supported the war without hesitation.
There was never a single time Democrats refused to fund the war, and now they are in charge still don’t. Onward with the Afghanistan escalation.
Poor Amerca. Most people still believe the official conspiracy theory concerning 911. What evidence are you relying on Rico that which you watch from public media sources. Your belefs and thoughts will track simply from such pablum as your emotion dictates.
Maybe 60-70 years from now we will know the “truth’ of what really happened.
#26 by Uncle Rico on October 4, 2009 - 7:53 am
your rite anon, me two stoopid to get it me not no how to think may be if i was republic an and watch fox i better understood
#27 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 8:06 am
Ok, that shows growth potential Rico. Good luck on your future successes. Anyone can learn if they try.
Your emotions drove that response I feel. Better to take a deep breath, count to ten Rico, and then post your genius.
#28 by Glenden Brown on October 4, 2009 - 8:12 am
Phil- that’s an interesting point. It is also one of the central criticisms of the US constitutional system – namely our system of checks and balances deliberately limits the President’s power and ability to implement his/her agenda (the era we just lived through in which a Republican Congress gladly did Bush’s bidding was an aberration). In a parliamentary system, the PM is chosen to form and led the government by his/her party which holds a majority. The British PM is in some ways far more powerful than is the US president. As party and governmental leader, Gordon Brown sets the agenda and is then responsible for implementing it; Brown got his job because he was skilled at building a majority within the Labor party, because he was able to work the backroom side of politics. IOW, to become Prime Minister, he had to be good at building a majority and rallying that majority to do something and then actually doing it. The PM in a parliamentary democracy is tasked with implementing the governing agenda the party (and he/she ran on) and is strictly accountable to the voters for it. The minority in a parliamentary democracy also works very differently – they create a “shadow” cabinet which constantly argues about how they would govern differently, they offer different policy proposals. But generally they have no influence in parliament – certainly not enough to engage the kinds of obstruction our system allows for the minority partly. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond’s famous filibusters would never happen in a parliamentary system.
By contrast, our system separates the process of choosing a head of government (the president) from running the legislative branch. The divided government that dominated much of the sixth party system (beginning with Nixon) would never happen in a parliamentary system (think about it – since 1968 the president’s party has held a majority in the House for a total 8 years). Our system empowers the minority party in ways parliamentary systems don’t; Senators of the minority party have an ability to stop popular legislation in it tracks that simply does not exist in most parliamentary systems. Our system by design sets the legislative branch at odds with the executive; Congressional privileges and power are by design supposed to limit the executive and the executive is in some ways dependent on the legislative branch for its powers. Yet Congress cannot speak with a single voice the way the president can; so the president can set the national agenda but has no power to implement it. Even when the same party control both legislative and executive branches (save the exception I noted above), the two branches are often at odds and the President must work in ways a PM never does do get his/her policy agenda enacted into law.
That President Obama has generally taken a hands off approach with Congress – essentially saying here’s what needs to happen, make it happen – and then leaving Congress to work out the details is paradoxically a sign of his respect for our Constitutional design even as it has resulted in some real frustration for Americans.
#29 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 8:54 am
Glenden:
Thank you for pointing out to Phil the differences in our political – non-parliamentarian – system to Phil. There is nothing worse that a wingnut using apples to oranges comparisons, although it appears that is typical of all style of argument these days from the wingnut croud, starting with Limbaugh/Hannity, moving on down to Boehner/McConnel, and winding up with the stupid and susceptible at the bottom of the barrel, where Phil and his ilk reside.
#30 by Ken on October 4, 2009 - 9:21 am
Richard
I don’t know why you keep citing that political hack site DailyKos poll. If Obama can only muster 53% at the DailyKos he is in serious trouble.
But then again you keep citing the now completely discredited National Intelligence Estimate report on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Glendon
It is the strength of our Constitutional system of checks and balances that keeps any one leader from assuming too much power. That is the point.
#31 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 9:32 am
Thank you for the primer on parliamentary systems. This however does not explain well Obama’s inability to lead. He is commonly blaming others for what he has taken responsibility for. Simply put if a president cannot get the opposition or his own party to see their way clear to support whatever vision he/she has, then they are a failure. It may have less to do with the actions and situations implemented by a US president, but if the presidency cannot get what they desired passed in large, they are then a failure. Rather like a doorstop in the running of government. The doorstop being the veto power.
Ok so let us review Obama.
Violating sovereignty of foreign nations with regard to flying missiles over their airspace violating international law.
The stimulus. Just continuing what Bush offered and a Democrat congress approved. Hardly what could be called inventive or leadership.
The rest on the rack, no public option and a complete kowtow to existing power structures in the country governing health care.
Does this sound like a great job?
James considering that your own understanding of why Democrats don’t all support Obama is quite limited, tell me why you think the man has lost the support of a critical element of his own party, the part that could help him pass all the plans he wishes to?
As to apples and oranges, if this were parliamentary system Obama would be on his way out, as it is, since you seem to support Obama, be thankful. As a believer your pleasure should be that his failed presidency has not landed him back in Chicago as would be the case in a parliamentary system.
So we languish through the Obama years. Just hope they are short, and we stay out of foreign entanglements.
This is the fourth year of a Democrat congress, so if you are prone to it, place the blame for what has happened in the last 4 years squarely where it is deserved.
Yes the founders knew well they wanted a government that acted very slowly and with much friction. Better a gridlocked government that cannot legislate than one that legislates badly.
Don’t see how this doesn’t make Obama a failed president. The only thing that the president has complete control over is the conduct of foreign policy, and in that realm Obama has proved a lightweight with all the according jilting adding punctuation to his weakness.
#32 by Richard Warnick on October 4, 2009 - 9:41 am
I can’t believe Glenn is now denying that al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This is like the interminable, fact-free debates over whether Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK (he did).
Al Jazeera has video showing Osama bin Laden meeting with several of the 9/11 hijackers. of course, Glenn will claim it’s a fake and try to take us back into fact-free territory.
#33 by Uncle Rico on October 4, 2009 - 9:43 am
Tell me again about the rabbits, George.
#34 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 9:44 am
Anon:
OK. Here is your opportunity. Try and speak without the negative analysis. You are so informed on what is needed in this country and world. Give us your take. What should Obama and the Congress be doing, how and when? Start with #1, then move on to #2, and finish with #3. You are president, now; what is your 1, 2 and 3 and how will you do it without “failure.”
Your big chance, we all wait in great anticipation!
#35 by Richard Warnick on October 4, 2009 - 9:53 am
Ken–
Daily Kos doesn’t take the polls. They are conducted by Research 2000. Gallup has the same number for President Obama — 53 percent. Is Gallup a “political hack site”?
In what way is the Iran NIE “completely discredited”? Seriously, where do you get your information?
BTW, the Obama administration has gotten more from the Iranian government in one day of diplomatic discussions than the Bush administration achieved with eight years of threats.
#36 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 10:07 am
“When I was in doubt, I did nothing”.
Sir Ernest Shackleton’s answer when asked how he survived 17 months on the Antarctic ice with no loss of crew. All lived.
Shackleton never acted from his ego. When he had no good solution, he waited. He admitted his doubts. This is what Obama should be doing. However instead BO pushes and rushes, proving to me at least, he has no interest in the survival of all of those he purports to lead. It is about him, and his “plan”. Perhaps he has no choice, for I have always considered him a puppet.
The best we can do with Obama and the Democrat Congress is vote them away. Not too far off. So to answer your question, there is nothing the Democrat congress or Obama can do or should do. They are simply incapable of modifying at this stage their plan. They have no idea of what “success” is, or how to implement it. Moot point anyway, they will soon be out of power, at least power of a working uncontested majority. They failed, once again many saw it coming.
After 8 years of perpetual lies and your denigration of the last administration Richard, you would hold our entire policy future with regard to “terror” on the basis of a questionable video? Yeah, I think it is fake. So how do you explain the fact that Bin Laden claimed no responsibility for 911? Sort of goes against the whole fighting and destruction of the Great Satan motif don’t you think?
How would Osama ( Al Queda) benefit from the denial? Better yet, how did he benefit from the denial? In your mind Richard, believer that you are, why did Osama deny involvement? He couldn’t have been scared, I mean really, you believe he concocted his plan in secret from his cave hideaway in Afghanistan, with cold premeditation. Lying about involvement after such a monumental calling doesn’t make much sense does it?
If it works for you Ok, but it doesn’t work for most of the world that knows that AL Queda as presented on TV is a Western media FABRICATION.
#37 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 10:43 am
Anon (glen):
So, that’s it? Your 1, 2 and 3 plans for success for the nation are do nothing, do nothing and do nothing? Brilliant!
PS. While not a student of Shackleton, I can virtually asure you he did not survive by doing nothing. Does your idiocy know no bound?
#38 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 11:07 am
Shackleton did do plenty, but he only did so with whatever surety he could muster in his situation. Obama has few doubts about his plan and its direction and this dooms him. He has already miscalculated badly and his screwups are appearing in the stats of the daily paper. As far as our enemies are concerned and foreign policy in general, the world smells weakness in Obama, so there will be no exaltation of American status worldwide. We saw this in the Olympic bid. This will be common while Obama fronts the show.
The truth of the matter is the vast majority of human folly is self inflicted. This is Obama’s folly, he is either following someone else’s plan or is simply sticking with what he knows and pressing it, as to do otherwise is default on the egotistical promises he made in his campaign. He cannot either realize or possesses so much hubris that these plans have already run amok. In this he is no different than Bush, and many American presidents. The difference is Obama blames other when asked dirtect questions about his failures, and offers most people no future that resembles anything that means anything in their lives. He truly is a terrible politician. To be so behind the 8 ball in 10 months would humorous if it weren’t so dire for so many.
James the ad hominem adds so much to your soapbox style. Don’t be bitter because I predicted all this, and you were nothing more than a moist sycophant for this fraud of a president. To be sure this crisis is going to get sooo much worse. Get out of the market unless your faith drags your common sense into belief. Bad combination.
I am president.
I recall our troops in foreign lands.
I destroy the Federal reserve and make the US Treasury the sole creator of money in the USA. The rest of the world can do as they like.
I implement zero deficit spending in Federal government. What the States do with their monies will be what the states do with their money.
Work to outlaw derivatives scams, and regulate Wall Street. As it stands now, Obama is Wall Street’s bitch.
Stand back and get ready to put out the fires as they appear. Failing that, empower the States to take matters as they see them within the aegis of the Constitution into their own hands.
There would be no more unfunded federal mandates.
Government could only grow within the context of a balanced budget.
Cut taxes. As we are now headed, the debt already created will nullify any growth in economy, anemic as it is under the spectre of enlarged government.
I get rid of the Patriot Act.
For starters only, there is so much more, yet I have to say, the Feds will solve nothing, America’s future lies in the hands of the States. Pick a good one. The Fed will be beyond doing anything about our troubles very shortly no matter who runs the clunker of a government apparatus.
#39 by Richard Warnick on October 4, 2009 - 11:19 am
Glenn–
Bin Laden likes to assume an air of false modesty, that plays well within Muslim culture. He has alternately taken the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and hinted that others deserve the “credit” if you can call it that.
As a practical matter, what bin Laden says could be literally true since he apparently didn’t plan the attacks himself –but he approved the plans. It’s like if Bush were to say, “I didn’t invade Iraq.” In literal terms, he didn’t.
But don’t let me stop you from inventing alternative, counter-factual conspiracy theories. Go right ahead.
#40 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 11:21 am
Glen:
Huh? How did your fail-safe philosophy of do-nothing meld into the above laundry list of action items, each requiring lots of risk and certainly far more than doing nothing?
You missed your calling, glen, as a washed up college professor. You would have made a great critic of other people’s work, unable to offer anything substantive of your own.
#41 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 12:08 pm
I have to laugh Richard, whatever. You can conveniently believe what you have been spoonfed. BTW, who are you refering to?
You wanted a list, that is what I might have done. You wanted to know what Obama should do. First thing to do when you screw up big time is pause and reflect on what it is you did wrong. If you cannot do that, it is a bit hopeless, no? Obama is not this kind of guy.
Yes Jim, what are you offering? Are you just saying that Obama does what James would do? Truly your own contributions are largelyas a follower, I can’t recall much original thought in what it is you support.
Have fun while the reality I predicted comes to pass. So much of it already has. Not that this is any accolade, it doesn’t take a Ph.d to figure out how what Obama proposed and has put into action, is never going to work.
So now you have decended into nothing more as a cheerleader for your guy. That is fine, delineate what is so good about the man and his proposals, keeping in mind if the market has responded to stimulus, that would be a legacy of last administration. Hard to swallow but if you wish to credit Obama with it, that follows perfectly. My real point would be, there is not much new from this guy except bearing witness to his international naivte. American trait though not unique to U Oh.
#42 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 12:30 pm
Glen:
The market has responded to the stimulus. It has not crashed; we will wait and see what happens next. All will agree that had the large injections of capital into the market had not been made, we could be in catastrophic state today. If part of the credit goes to Bush, then fine. I don’t understand why you feel it beneath me to give credit where credit is do. I just tire of the party of no, which you seem to be a major cheerleader in support thereof.
PS. Just curious, did you pay any federal income tax this year, or are you one of the 47% of Americans who did not. I dare say, correct me if otherwise, that you are one of the many who gets far more from the US government than you contribute. Yah???
#43 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Look, the markets have responded anemically. Industry observers state that with amount of cash injected into the market, not just by Obama, but by Bush as well, the market should be standing at 30 to 40k. If you do not understand how completely screwed we now are, I cannot help you.
The “fix” for this kind of fiscal disaster has historically been war. Not the penny ante kind we have been fighting in ME, but all encompassing conflict in which debt and obligations can be simply ignored upon the crisis. This in my opinion is where we are headed. Hell indeed, we are already there.
Who are you talking to there James? I post anonymously, and am not who you are referring to. The thoughts are easy enough to understand, do you have a fixation on who is offering a differing view of things? Is that something you need as a comfort?
I am no republican supporter, they are simply more driven to successful implementation of their plans. No matter the whining, Bush implemented all he wished and had most Democrats eating out of his hand. If saying no to a 2 trillion dollars of deficit in one year is bad, then call it so. Most conservatives hated Bush’s spending, and are aghast at Obama’s continuation of it. This spending guarantees the end of our empire, we will soon no longer call the tune. Obama is just Bush’s 3rd term and accelerates the fall.
Actually James, I can’t make heads or tales of what you think, most of your postings don’t get past the cheer leading or attack phases of emotionally driven commentary.
#44 by James Farmer on October 4, 2009 - 1:18 pm
Glen:
Not a republican supporter, you say? Ha! Everything you spout is either grounded in conservative double-speak or naysaying Democrat’s attempts to repair the havoc wrought by Bush policies. Give me a break! You have contributed nothing, and have nothing to contribute. BTW, how much federal income tax did you pay this year; assuming, that is, you even file tax returns?
#45 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 2:03 pm
Fixing Bush policies. Isn’t it true that all policy must go through congress be approved and then the spending run by the OMB?
We are beginning the 4th years of a Democrat congress. Who passes legislation, who authorizes spending? 6th grade civics.
James, try to remember why I do this. No progressives really answer any of the conservative points, which is why Obama is so roundly getting his ass kicked. Try to answer these questions, because I assure you, they represent very well the bulk of the public and its concerns about Jaba Jawa Obama.
People’s contributions are what is demanded by law, nothing more. Whoever you refer to ok, but really what does any of that have to do with Obama screwing the Pooch?
How much did you pay James? What tax shelters have you set up? Don’t you feel a little silly as our gov’t dilutes your investments so with its never ending money creation?
Please remember, there has never been a paper currency to survive in history, they all bust at some point. Act accordingly. The bust is on, any expectation that with the stupidity of what is being implemented and our aging demographics there will be a hopey changey outlook is just silly by now.
#46 by Glenden Brown on October 4, 2009 - 2:43 pm
. . . and yet the strict separation of powers in the US constitutional system has created a “frozen republic” in which the government is bogged down and in which popular and necessary policies don’t get enacted. Consider that in both 01 and 03, the majority didn’t want tax rates cut and believed that we would better off keeping tax rates the same to reduce government debt. Despite that, taxes were cut.
By contrast, many parliamentary governments are far more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the public.
#47 by anonymous on October 4, 2009 - 3:01 pm
Glen, this is why the States are so important in taking care of their own issues. Unfortunately they have been lured into dependency, or simply coerced into unfunded federal mandates.
It has about come to pass that if you don’t have money for it, you have to decide that you don’t need it. That day is right here, right now
We live in an oligarchy, and just because a reprsentative calls themselves a “progressive” does not mean he/she won’t sell out their constituency for a corporate free ride.
#48 by Ken on October 4, 2009 - 9:41 pm
Glendon
The most efficient form of government is a totalitarian dictatorship. The people lose a lot in the name of efficiency.
The Constitution does make it harder to pass “good” laws but it also makes it harder to pass bad laws.
Our founding fathers knew it was far more damaging for the country to pass bad laws than it is to not pass “good” laws. Therefore they chose to make it difficult to pass all laws.
#49 by Glenden Brown on October 4, 2009 - 10:51 pm
Ken – I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not making an argument about efficiency, I’m making an effectiveness argument – I’m arguing that in a parliamentary system, there is a tighter connection, a stronger linkage between those who pass the laws and those who enforce them; if voters don’t like the laws being passed, is easy to identify who is responsible and hold them accountable. It seems, as well, that in parliamentary democracies its more difficult to pass unpopular laws, to engage in unpopular wars and so on because of those tight connections. Parliamentary systems have their weaknesses, but the fact that most democracies have eschewed our system in favor of parliamentary democracy makes me wonder if we need a deeper discussion about democracy in the US.
I disagree that our constitutional system makes it more difficult to pass bad laws. Our system – with is division of authority – encourages inaction over action, it favors the status quo over instituting needed reforms. I don’t for a moment believe the founders were nearly as far sighted as your giving them credit for being. They were products of a specific time and place. The separation of powers institutionalized in our Constitution was part and parcel of English governmental thinking at the time. Where the English government has continued to evolve – moving from separation of powers to basically stripping the monarchy of any real political power and more recently stripping the House of Lords of significant power and locating real power in the popularly elected Commons – our government has evolved relatively little (probably the biggest changes are direct election of senators and the gradual expansion of suffrage).
Finally, it’s kind of an aside, but I think your statement that dictatorships are efficient is flawed. Dictatorships create strong resistance, they also represent a more extreme version of the kind of groupthink that undermined the Bush administration (I’m not saying Bush was a dictator but the authoritarian tendencies in his administration created a blind spot) – namely the suppression of dissent leads to huge imbalances. Those imbalances remain unaddressed until the system itself crashes. If you want evidence, look no further than the famines in Soviet Russia in the 1930s or the crash of China’s economy during the Great Leap forward and the Cultural Revolution; those events were the opposite of efficiency and grew naturally from dictatorial governments. IOW, dictatorships sow the seeds of their own destruction.
The real strength of democracy lays in its ability to integrate the insights of dissenters into policy discussions. It’s not as simple as “bipartisan compromise” – it’s a process of engaging dissenters and dissenting opinions and examining those ideas and policy proposals on their own merits. Successful democratic governments engage in policy discussions in meaningful ways. Unfortunately in the US, public discussion has been seriously flawed for years – we haven’t seen meaningful discussion of major policy issues starting with the Clinton health care reform. Consider the run up to the war in Iraq; rather than make an honest case, the Bush administration and its allies lied and accused anyone who disagreed with them of treason. This year, we’ve seen opponents of health care reform argue against it with bald-faced lies that have been dutifully reported by Fox news. It’s unhealthy and damaging to our democracy.
#50 by Larry Bergan on October 5, 2009 - 5:25 pm
Paul Krugman has a great take on Ken’s subject.
#51 by Ken on October 6, 2009 - 12:37 am
Did I call it or what? Jessie Jackson blames Bush for Olympic loss.
Yeah I’m sure the Olympic committee took it out on Obama because Bush didn’t sign on to the Kyoto Protocol which, by-the-way, was first rejected by the United States during the Clinton administration.
Yes indeed the Buck stops at Bush.
#52 by Larry Bergan on October 6, 2009 - 10:19 am
The buck always stopped at Cheney’s undisclosed location for the longest eight years in American history.