Friday, February 06, 2009

So why hasn't Obama been a leader in crafting his major policy objective?

President Obama has been putting forth a full court press to press the Senate version of the bill that is in place now and basically matches the House bill except they've added about another $100 billion. He has been making a public appearance every day to push for the passage of that bill and even took to the opinion pages of the Washington Post to urge passage of the bill. He was writing about that specific plan and telling us how much it would do for the economy and our long term problems.

Now we have this bipartisan group trying to cut out about $100 billion from the bill so that they can come up with something that will gain a few Republican votes and pass. And they're patting themselves on the back for saving Obama from failing with his highest priority.
But Ms. Collins said Mr. Obama had offered encouragement. Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the work of the group could ultimately be a plus for the president by coming up with a package that cost less and led to more jobs.

“We might be the president’s best allies, helping him achieve his objective but honoring the reform message he stands for,” Mr. Bayh said.
President Obama seems really passive in this whole procedure. He allowed Pelosi and crew to craft the House bill. Then he urged the Representatives to support that bill even though it didn't fit the criteria that he'd trumpeted previously of having 40% in tax cuts. After that he allowed the Senate leadership to put together their version of the bill. And now he's pushing for that version of the bill. Right now the moderates might put together a bill that can get a few Republican votes. He'll probably urge for passage of that bill.

But why hasn't he offered more leadership on what should be in the bill in the first place instead of outsourcing his high priority policy making to the Hill? He's turned himself into chief lobbyist for the bill rather than the man at the table making sure that it's a decent bill that matches his priorities in the first place.

28 comments:

LarryD said...

No Executive experience.

A voting record with a lot of "present" votes.

How many bills did he author or co-author or even sponsor as a Senator?

The One has no history of exhibiting leadership. So I assume the question is rhetorical.

tfhr said...

LarryD,

Exactly right.

Obama simply does the only thing he can do: Speak.

He abandoned his leadership role to the Speaker [of the House] which seems almost as ironic as it is tragic. If there has ever been a more inept Speaker [of the House], I'm not sure who that would be but no speaking on the part of the President will help because the bill is a deeply flawed and wasteful example of what makes the Congress so unpopular with the American people.

Speaking of popular and unpopular, Obama could, if he had the good sense to do so, use his popularity to go over the heads of the Congress and it's record setting pork-fest and deliver a smartly crafted package aimed at immediate problems. He should speak to his economic advisors and have them help him craft a real plan.

Otherwise it would seem he either doesn't know any better due to a lack of experience, thinks he can BS this past us with his daily speeches, or is simply afraid of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the multitude of pork recipients waiting for their handouts.

Pat Patterson said...

The question will be, after some form of bill passes, just how much that pound of flesh the Blue Dogs and Republicans expect in return. I don't even think Jimmy Carter lost so quickly and so completely a major legislative act in his few weeks in office.

mark said...

If the only thing Obama can do is speak, it is at least one more skill than our previous president had.

tfhr,
Your constant criticism of your commander-in-chief really is (conduct) unbecoming. Are you absolutley sure you're active military? No, I'm not trying to take away your freedom of speech, but it seems a good soldier would be a little more dignified. Especially one who once maintained that criticism of a president during war was un-American.

ic said...

He is doing his community organizing.

tfhr said...

mark,

My observations and comments only bother you to the extent that they are true.

Stop crying now that you are on defense and explain how Obama could take the lead with this issue and help the country. I wish he would. This is not a time to be lead around by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Your definition of criticism and mine are clearly at odds. When borderline lunatic Al Gore spewed, "He [Bush] betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America... on an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place", I'd say that is more than just criticism. Besides appearing overwrought and in the throes of a conspiracy theory orgasm, Gore accused President Bush of "betraying" the country.

What hurt this country was not just a single rant from a foaming Al Gore, it was also Move-on.org accusing General Petraeus of betraying the country. Remember that? It was John Murtha, in his haste to attack Bush, accusing innocent Marines of murder. Did you think that was acceptable? It was Dick Durbin, in a moment of liberal insight, comparing American MPs at Guantanamo with the SS, Gulag guards, and the Khmer Rouge, then later recanted in a bawling, squalling apology. I also remember Harry Reid claiming that "the war was lost".

Criticism is fine but these bizarre liberal fantasies are something else. You know, kind of like your Rush Limbaugh fantasy with Viagra and childern. Why did you bring your sick fantasy life into these threads, mark?

Pat Patterson said...

The very fact that mark refers to "...your commander-in-chief" almost negates any need to explain why what tfhr writes is certainly not in violation of any regulation in the USMCJ. Aside from acts that would lead to a loss of order or discipline servicemen are usually only restrained by self-preservation.

Besides there has always been a difference between complaining about the competency of the president and claiming any act he takes as illegitimate. The former has been around dating back to some spearman complaining about the food that Ashurnasirpal furnished his soldiers. While the latter is just as old but seems part and parcel of the talking points of the left when a vote doesn't go their way.

mark said...

No, the stimulus package won't be perfect by any stretch. Too many greedy pigs on both sides of the aisle. Obama is at least trying to create a bit of accountability among execs. Bush wasted billions in overpayments:

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released Friday, said last year's overpayments amounted to a taxpayer-financed $78 billion subsidy of the firms.

Skay said...

This trillion dollar bill is Democrat pork--period.

Obama likes it.

mark said...

tfhr,
Interesting that you keep bringing up my (one-time) insinuation about el Rushbo. Who's keeping it alive here? Again, I didn't accuse Rush of anything. Just stated two facts that might lead one to a conclusion (and whether it was underage or "of consenting age" sex, it's still pretty sleazy. But Rush refuses to talk about it, so I guess we'll never know. Why are you defending a guy who has called Bill Clinton a murderer (Vince Foster) and a rapist (Juanita Broderick) and a young Chelsea Clinton the "family dog". Then again, you called Ted Kennedy a murderer, absence a conviction or a confession, so burden of proof is relative, I suppose.
By your words, I think I can sum you up as against criticizing a (republican) president in a time of war and against legalization of marijuana. But in favor of torture, criticizing a (democrat) president in a time of war, and war-profiteering. Have I got it right?
Speaking of war-profiteering, have you had a chance to check out halliburtonwatch.com. Filled with good stuff in which halliburton acknowledges overcharging the govt. Again, not accusations, but acknowledgement. The only defense against it being war-profiteering is intent. If you believe they were all innocent mistakes: No problem, just incompetence. If any of them were intentional, however, then those would be cases of war-profiteering. Maybe it's better you don't look. You might have to think.

kralizec said...

I'm not sure the details of the bill are important to Obama. He seems to be trying to give a few hundred billion dollars to his constituents and the organizations that control them. He seems willing to see it done any old way, and at any time over the next few years. I'm not sure the American economy as a whole is really in his focus; it seems he may be happy as long as he's seen giving money to his constituents.

tfhr said...

mark,

Are you saying that Bush alone determined where each dollar went and that the Congress had no say?

I thought that bailout was wrong on many points but I never viewed it as the fault of just one man. Take your partisan blinders off and you will see many of the same faces standing behind this latest, sloppily crafted give-way, only this time they've piled it on higher and deeper.

mark said...

tfhr,
Partisan blinders? If you look just three posts up, you'll note I called both sides greedy pigs. While people were pointing fingers at the other side when this crisis first became apparent, I said it was caused by greed and stupidity on both sides, private sector and public, wealthy to poor. Given that Bush was president for the past eight years, and repubs had congress for six of them, I would say repubs have to assume at least half the blame. With great power comes great responsibility, right? And spin it any way you want, but Limbaugh saying "I want Obama to fail", and the repubs refusal to repudiate that comment, is despicable.

Pat Patterson said...

Failure to repudiate is a zero sum game that goes on and on. Do liberals repudiate GB Shaw or Margaret Sanger for being fans of eugenics. Or do I have to apologize for HL Menckens or Woodrow Wilson's racist and anti-Semitic rants.

But when Rep Clyburn admitted that success in the Iraq War was good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats I don't remember too many Democrats dragging out the ash cloth. Nor actually much repudiation of Bill Ayers for dedicating one of his books to Sirhan Sirhan.

All in all just useless navel gazing of which the left seems anatomically and psychologically suited.

tfhr said...

mark,

You laid Blame for $78 billion wasted at Bush's feet when you said, "Bush wasted billions in overpayments", when citing the Congressional Oversight Panel's findings on the billions of taxpayer dollars squandered in the last bailout scam. I pointed out to you that he didn't do it alone, as your comment implied. You might have considered a phrase that included both Bush and the Congress, including Senator Obama.

As long as you're whining about Limbaugh again, which of Bush's policies did you want to succeed? Which ones did you support? Did you ever contact your representatives and ask, no, demand that they stand arm in arm with President Bush?

Well?

Also, did you find it "despicable" when Democrat members of Congress, such noted liberals like Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, and Durbin among them, publicly smeared our troops and declared the war "lost"? Did your representatives repudiate that or were they among the crowd that howled for the defeat of America to fuel their petty political ambitions?

The Mighty Quinn said...

Obama became President due to Affirmative Action, not leadership.

mark said...

tfhr,
Actually, I did, on this blog, criticize those comments you keep referring to by Reid and Durbin, as well as the ad by Move-on. I have also criticized Obama for the Geitner and Daschle picks. I am an unaffiliated voter because I don't trust either party. I'm not responsible for comments by anyone but myself. On the other hand, you continue to defend Halliburton despite evidence of war-profiteering. Have you had a chance to check out Halliburtonwatch.com? Only if you believe that all the cases of overcharging (not accusations mind you, but acknowledgements) were innocent mistakes, even you would have to agree that at least some high-level employees engaged in war-profiteering.
Rush has put himself out there as a leader of the hapless republican party (though it looks like Joe the Plumber will give him some competition). He is very good at throwing out unsubstantiated claims: Bill Clinton is a murderer (Vince Foster) and a rapist (Juanita Broderick). He can dish it out, but he's shown he can't take it. Too bad for him.

mark said...

Quinn (but not so mighty),
How long did it take you to come up with that one-line zinger?

Not only insulting but way off-base. Like him or not, Obama challenged the Clinton campaign when everyone assumed she had a lock on the nomination. He ran a great campaign against Clinton, and a very good campaign against McCain. To attribute his success to affirmative action demonstrates an acute lack of intelligence. See tfhr's comment regarding political blinders.

It is an especially bizarre claim given that the previous president failed his way up the ladder. And like him or not, we all know he was a slacker until the age of 40. Not too many people get the number of do-overs that W had.

The Mighty Quinn said...

Obama is President because of his race, not because of his leadership. A white man or woman with Obama's "credentials" would have been laughed off the stage.

Obama ran a "good" race in the sense that because of his skin color, the MSM refused to properly vet Obama and gave him a pass while attacking his opponents. For example, a white candidate who attended and financially supported a racist hate group for 20 years (laughably called a "church" by Obama) would have torn to shreds by the MSM. Not so for Obama, who the MSM allowed to pretend that he never knew what was going on.

Towering Barbarian said...

Mark,
"It is an especially bizarre claim given that the previous president failed his way up the ladder."

Untrue claims often are bizarre and it's good of you to notice that. President Bush was more successful with his life than Molly Ivins, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Ann Richards, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama or Barney Frank ever were with theirs. Sucks to be them.

BTW, speaking of slackers, have Greither or Daschle ever learned how to do their income tax forms yet? :P

It's going to be amusing to watch the next 4 years as the real life sequal to Dustin Hoffman's "The Candidate", won't it? Not so fun for the poor fools who voted for Obama but hey! Stupidity of that level deserves to be punished and Mr. Obama's incompetance will ensure that their punishment is harsh. ^O^

Skay said...

Juanita Broderick Saik that Bill Clinton raped her.


Rush did not make that up.

I balieve it was Clinton who lied under oath and Mrs Clinton who said it was a vast right wing conspiracy.


Both Clintons have a consistant problem with the truth.

tfhr said...

mark,

Please check your BDS at the door.

"It is an especially bizarre claim given that the previous president failed his way up the ladder. And like him or not, we all know he was a slacker until the age of 40. Not too many people get the number of do-overs that W had".

You need to let go...Move-on®, for God's sake. You can't advocate for CHANGE® if all you do is carp about the evil-doers (W., Halliburton, Cheney, etc.)lurking under your bed. It's not unlike Obama himself, still mired in campaign mode instead of leading.

As for your attacks on Limbaugh, at least Obama seems to be setting the pace for you there, so I guess that counts as "leadership", though it is a sad example. But why on Earth does an American President feel the need to attack a private citizen such as Limbaugh?

Obama needs to realize that he should be above that fray. Yapping about Hanity during the campaign was fun but it's time to behave like a President now. Besides, if he is going to spend his time chasing around after Limbaugh, who is taking the criticism and taking all of this publicity that comes with it straight to the bank, by the way, what will be left for MSM hacks and blog trolls to do?

Finally, I wish you wouldn't bring up Juanita Broaddrick's rape charges against Bill Clinton. Please Move-on® already.

mark said...

tfhr,
So now that you understand that Halliburton is guilty of war-profiteering, your answer is "move-on"? How patriotic!

tfhr said...

mark,

You need to get over your BDS. Whatever your claims of profiteering are, it would seem that Congress must be in collusion since they have done nothing about it. Are they against you too?! Or could it be that there isn't a case to be made against your favorite corporate boogey man. Let's add paranoia to your Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Towering Barbarian said...

Mark,
War-profiteering, eh? So how does that work? Do you presume that merchants come in and force soldiers to hand money to them at the point of a gun? o_O

Or could it be that maybe the merchants in question provided a service that their customers found useful? And why do you think it wrong for merchants who sell to soldiers to make money for the risks they undergo? O_o

BTW, as long as we are talking about "profiteering" do you want to discuss the embezzlements at Fannie Mae that was done by Clintonites in order to line their own pockets? Would you like to discuss the role of Barney Frank in causing the current recession for his own profit? Or would you say that their motive was not so much profit as to deliberately trigger a recession in order to give their party an election? If Mr. Obama were worth much in terms of policy rather than merely being a sockpuppet for certain outside interests then why hasn't he talked about capping the salaries and bonuses of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and all the other Democrat Congresscritters who got us into this recession in the first place? o_O

Answer when you dare. Inquiring minds would really like to know! :P

mark said...

TB,
Sorry, if you don't know what war-profiteering is, you'll need to educate yourself. I don't have time.
Interesting that we've moved from "Is Halliburton a war-profiteer?" to "Yeah, but what about those other guys". I'm glad you folks have finally accepted that at least several Halliburton execs have betrayed our country.
I have no interest in defending the people you mentioned. As I've said, plenty of greed and corruption on both sides. But fannie mae is a whole different matter.

tfhr said...

mark,

You huffed, "...several Halliburton execs have betrayed our country".

Name names and tell me who in Congress has launched an investigation and who has been charged with a crime. Or are you going to call them pedophiles too before you run off?

You have an annoying habit of accusing people of terrible crimes though they are never charged, never tried, and never convicted. Reminds me of Murtha...now there is "betrayal" for you.

And please enlighten us on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is it a "different matter" because so many key Democrats are up to their eyeballs in the scandal?

Towering Barbarian said...

Mark,
So you have the time to boohoo about the fact that people are doing "war profiteering" but you don't have the time to learn what the term actually means? o_O

How very *Liberal* of you! O_O

And interesting that Democrats are so quick to shy away from the Socratic method as well! ^O^

It's good that you don't want to defend the Obama administration and his associated Democrat congresscritters from the fact that they are nothing but a gang of clueless embezzlers; but unless you can state *how* you think a firm supposedly betrayed its country by selling goods and services you won't be able to convince anyone that you know what you are talking about. :P