Expectations for President Obama

dteowner said:

"Thinking about the diversity of our culture and inviting jazz musicians, and classical musicians, and poetry readings in the White House so that once again we appreciate this incredible tapestry that's America, you know, that, I think, is going to be incredibly important, particularly because we're going through hard times,"

Click to expand...

The President leads not only by setting bold plans, but also by reminding us why we are in the greatest nation on Earth. This is just one example and I am pleased to know Obama is going to bring some hard-swinging Jazz back to the White House. You do know Jazz music was invented in the USA, right? (Oh yeah, it was primarliy by black people though, so it doesn't count, huh?).

I can see why elkston is so pleased. That's a plan, there. I know my consumer confidence went up a point or two.

Click to expand...

And only one who is dead set on mocking him would believe he said that with intents of boosting consumer confidence. In case you didn't notice, he spent the rest of the interview talking about details of this stimulus plan and released a youtube video about it as well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGdEdODCIX0)

He also told the truth. That we are in for tough times and we won't come out of this immediately. He's not sugar coating or avoiding the issue. He is telling it like it is, as we should expect from any leader.

I didn't know much about Bush-II when he was elected, but I certainly respected the office and gave him a chance. I expect you do the same.

For the nation's sake, I hope your confidence bears out, elkston. If the Change-inator can get the job done, by all means more power to him. You'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath, but I'm sure there will be a long line of people smacking me around if he manages to pull the rabbit out of his hat. I'll take that abuse if I earn it--the unfortunate part is that the same long line will probably be nowhere to be found should events prove that I'm right.

dteowner said:

For the nation's sake, I hope your confidence bears out, elkston. If the Change-inator can get the job done, by all means more power to him. You'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath, but I'm sure there will be a long line of people smacking me around if he manages to pull the rabbit out of his hat. I'll take that abuse if I earn it--the unfortunate part is that the same long line will probably be nowhere to be found should events prove that I'm right.

Click to expand...

Well, if you expect us all to line up and shake your hand the first time O makes a mistake, that might be true. However in general, if events prove him to be a worthless screw-up, I imagine everyone will do what we do in America, abandon him as a loser, and you'll have plenty of company in your "I told ya so" bunker as the bombs fly and we're all getting our dinner recipes from 1001 Ways to Wok Your Dog.

(I don't really see much chance of this happening *because* of the Sainted One, but it may happen in spite of him.)

You know, elkston, if I'm such a racist, why are you always the first one to fire racial slurs when race isn't even part of the conversation?
-------------------------
So if he fails, it was just beyond all hope; if he succeeds, it's all him. I thought I was the one getting accused of that sort of thing. Y'all were so supremely confident of the Change-inator's magic going into the election, and you're already hedging before he's even taken the oath of office??? Tut tut, I say. Tut tut to you, one and all.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't expect him to be a worthless screwup. That title is reserved for Dubya Term 2. I think Estaban's chicken (I have to watch faaaaar too much Disney Channel) could manage better than that standard, so Barack should be safe. I do expect him to do a lot of wheel spinning as his rainbows and unicorns slam into the wall of the real world. Whether the disallusion will be sufficient to sour the faithful horde remains to be seen, but I'll keep the kleenex handy.

dteowner said:

For the nation's sake, I hope your confidence bears out, elkston. If the Change-inator can get the job done, by all means more power to him. You'll have to forgive me if I don't hold my breath, but I'm sure there will be a long line of people smacking me around if he manages to pull the rabbit out of his hat. I'll take that abuse if I earn it--the unfortunate part is that the same long line will probably be nowhere to be found should events prove that I'm right.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that because I was talking with a collegue right after the election and it was funny none of us could find people (Americans, Reps) who will say they voted for Bush. They'll hammer him down like the rest of us good ol' dems any day of the week now, but won't say they voted for him in the last election, it must be too painful for them to remember.

I guess it's just the way the beast runs, my friend. Whether in politics, sports or what have you(Except cub fans, they are an anomaly by loving their Cubbies through the thick and the very very very thin.

I for one will stand there and take it while you say "I told you so, now get down another bomb is coming."

elkston said:

The President leads not only by setting bold plans, but also by reminding us why we are in the greatest nation on Earth.

Click to expand...

Change that to one of the greatest nations and I'd agree with that

It's the line from his campaign about it being time to lead by the power of america's example not by the example of their power. For all the (partly illusory?) wealth and (severely stretched and badly focused?) military power america has its greatest influence on the world is through its cultural power.

True enough. For the record, I voted for Dubya Term 2, and the only times I've strayed from the Grand Ole Party are voting for Crazy Ross in 92 and for Evan Bayh twice (and I'll continue putting him in the senate until he wanders left). As incredibly, horribly disasterous as most of Dubya Act II has gone, I'd still take it over John Kerry.

And while we're at it, I was still a Cowboys fan in 89 when they went 1-15, although perhaps just a bit quieter.

dteowner said:

You know, elkston, if I'm such a racist, why are you always the first one to fire racial slurs when race isn't even part of the conversation?
-------------------------

Click to expand...

I don't know. Can you assure me that you went after Bill Clinton with an equal amount of vigor?

Yes, I can. If anything, I was far harder on Slick Willie simply because he was such a lying con artist (and not just about Hummergate). Even prior to his inauguration, it was clear Willie and the Ice Queen were Grand Master Shysters of the First Order*. I haven't rolled out the big guns on Barack yet because it's all prophesy and supposition at this point. He's got about a 1 year grace period before I get well and truly nasty (or have to start doling out apologies).

*- I'm man enough to admit that I'm jealous the Republicans haven't had anyone even remotely close to Willie's ability as a pure politician in years. Reagan is the only one even in the same zip code in my lifetime (I can't speak to Ike, which would be my next choice), and I'm not sure even Saint Ron would win that "teflon president" deathmatch. Perhaps that green adds fuel to my hatred.

@ elkston--I can back him up on that one; dte has been relentless in his anti-Clintonism long before Obama even entered the discussion. ( I have to admit I'm not very fond of the Clintons myself, as you may have noticed--they are imo kind of too reeking of entitlement, con artistry and flagrant self-interest, though I'm not going to argue about their accomplishments or abilities as they speak eloquently for themselves.)

@dte Oh, tut tut your own self. (okay, so I gushed a little after the Convention--sue me.) Obama's getting good press and has the wind of public opinion at his back, but this idea you seem to have that your party is a lone voice crying in the wilderness re:the dangers of his imperfections and the evils of the librulls is an exaggeration. There's a lot of what has been called Obamaphoria about, but I think it's because he's the first politician we've seen in umpteen years with a personality and the ability to speak in words of more than one syllable. Also he's another tremendously gifted pure politician, and I think it quite possible after he gets a few years on the Beltway behind him he'd win in a Clinton/Reagan last man standing deathmatch.

@skav--I've actually mentioned voting for Bush here rather recently--yes, it's extremely painful and embarrassing but as I said then, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081213...adversaries;_ylt=AqcYOazkbFMB8MNyguJ3.p39xg8F

Analysts say softened language goes only so far in improving relations. The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran continues to enrich uranium and is about halfway to having enough for a nuclear bomb, and unless it backs down, relations with the U.S. are unlikely to improve.

"The Iranian regime will soon disabuse the next president of any utopian belief in the power of diplomacy," Michael Rubin, of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, wrote recently.

Click to expand...

Apparently I'm not the only one that thinks hugs and kisses will end up falling short for the Change-inator.

dteowner said:

Apparently I'm not the only one that thinks hugs and kisses will end up falling short for the Change-inator.

Click to expand...

Yah the AEI is compleatly impartial when it comes to discussing foreign policy:

wikipedia said:

AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy. More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar, and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is a senior fellow

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who knows much about foreign policy is expecting much from 'hugs and kisses' - of course not much would be a huge improvement on Bush's half-intelligible and counterproductive posturing.

Interesting AP article about Obama and race over at MSNBC:

Debate over whether to call this son of a white Kansan and a black Kenyan biracial, African-American, mixed-race, half-and-half, multiracial — or, in Obama's own words, a "mutt" — has reached a crescendo since Obama's election shattered assumptions about race.

Obama has said, "I identify as African-American — that's how I'm treated and that's how I'm viewed. I'm proud of it." In other words, the world gave Obama no choice but to be black, and he was happy to oblige.
But the world has changed since the young Obama found his place in it...
"In 1903, W.E.B. DuBois said the question of the 20th century is the question of the color line, which is a simplistic black-white thing," said Favor, who is biracial. "This is the moment in the 21st century when we're stepping across that."

'Obama is whatever people project onto him'
Rebecca Walker, a 38-year-old writer with light brown skin who is of Russian, African, Irish, Scottish and Native American descent, said she used to identify herself as "human," which upset people of all backgrounds. So she went back to multiracial or biracial, "but only because there has yet to be a way of breaking through the need to racially identify and be identified by the culture at large."

"Of course Obama is black. And he's not black, too," Walker said. "He's white, and he's not white, too. Obama is whatever people project onto him ... he's a lot of things, and neither of them necessarily exclude the other."

Click to expand...

I tend to agree that Obama is often seen not as whoever he may be, but 'whatever people project on him', and that even as symbolism, an alloy is often stronger, more flexible and a better medium than any one of it's individual components.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_co/recession_stimulus

"I'll just try heroin that one time and then I'll go straight." Yep, I believe it.

Blue Dog Democrats would like to see legislation that would force Congress to pay for spending proposals with equal spending cuts or with new revenue.

Click to expand...

In with the old and out with the new, I guess. Republicans passed that law years ago. It didn't last long as neither side of the aisle liked having their free beer limited.

"Many will focus on the upfront cost of this legislation," she was to tell a House Democratic Policy and Steering Committee forum, according to an excerpt of her prepared remarks. "While we are not discussing small sums, focusing on the price tag alone ignores the cost of inaction and the real payoff in terms of job creation and increased revenues to our Treasury."

Click to expand...

Deficits don't matter, eh? If she's talking job creation, then that government spending is going to corporations, enriching their ownership. Sounds pretty trickle-down to me. Imagine that--now even closet commie Pelosi is espousing Reaganomics.

a member of the congressional Blue Dogs, a coalition of conservative and moderate Democrats.

Click to expand...

What exactly is a "conservative democrat"??? Oxymoron? Just plain moron?

On the thread subject, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed at his evasiveness on the middle east situation.

dteowner said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_co/recession_stimulus

"I'll just try heroin that one time and then I'll go straight." Yep, I believe it.

In with the old and out with the new, I guess. Republicans passed that law years ago. It didn't last long as neither side of the aisle liked having their free beer limited.
Deficits don't matter, eh? If she's talking job creation, then that government spending is going to corporations, enriching their ownership. Sounds pretty trickle-down to me. Imagine that--now even closet commie Pelosi is espousing Reaganomics.
What exactly is a "conservative democrat"??? Oxymoron? Just plain moron?

Click to expand...

Dte, if you can't tell the difference between Keynesian stimulus and trickle-down voodoo, you really ought to shut up about economics.

For your edification, here's the difference:

Keynesian stimulus is temporary deficit spending when an economy is in recession due to insufficient aggregate demand. The theory is that this deficit spending will break the deflationary spiral that's strangling the economy, and allow it to recover more quickly. This theory has been abundantly validated by experience, both positive (it works when it's been tried sufficiently vigorously) and negative (if it's not tried, economies take very long to break the deflationary spiral and start to recover).

Trickle-down economics holds that any tax cuts will pay for themselves, including the cost of servicing any debt taken on to make those tax cuts, because the private sector is so much more efficient at investing that money than the public sector, and the economy will therefore grow faster than the debt. This theory has been abundantly falsified by experience, both positive and negative: if it's applied vigorously enough, the constant stimulus of deficit spending leads to investment bubbles, which, when they pop, lead to recessions, with the government in much worse fiscal shape to be able to deal with them; economies that do not apply it do not grow any more slowly over the long term.

The policy recommendations derived from this are --

Keynesians: Deficit spend with both hands when the economy is in recession. When the economy is growing, run up a surplus to pay off the debt and build a cushion for the next one.

Trickle-downers: Deficit spend all the time. The market will take care of the rest.

Any questions?

You just don't let me have any fun, PJ.

Benedict said:

On the thread subject, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed at his evasiveness on the middle east situation.

Click to expand...

I'm not. Speaking out on it now would only complicate matters: it would create ambiguity about the intentions of American diplomacy and thereby chop the other leg off the lame duck too, it would unnecessarily tie Obama's hands once he does take the helm, and in any case the situation is developing so quickly that whatever he'd say now may already be out of date by January 20 -- either because there's already a ceasefire, or because the whole place is going up in smoke.

IOW, there isn't anything he could say that would make the situation any better, and there's a great deal he could say that would make it much worse.

dteowner said:

You just don't let me have any fun, PJ.

Click to expand...

No, dte -- I'm trying to improve your taste in what constitutes fun. What with the Blago/Burris circus, I'd expect there's plenty of material around for that.

It's a stretch to pin any of that circus on the lefties, though. It would be an embarassing streeeeeeetch on my part to attempt to soil Barack's halo over it. That's simply one guy biting the hand that didn't feed him. The lefties are badly bumbling around attempting to deal with it, but there just isn't enough tinder there to stoke the fascist fire.