President Obama clearly wants to demonstrate that he’s in charge and focused on the challenges before him. That’s why he has seemed to be everywhere since taking office five weeks ago, including Canada, Indiana, Florida, Colorado, Arizona and Capitol Hill. He might want to think about lowering his profile, because the public also can take confidence in a president who’s quietly at work in the Oval Office. But Associated Press suggested Obama’s schedule has been comparable to that of President Bush in early 2001, when he was pushing his $1.6 trillion in tax cuts. And former Wichitan Ron Walters, director of the African American Leadership Center at the University of Maryland, sees a strategy in the salesmanship. “If he were not as active as he is, there would be a vacuum,” Walters told AP. “We’d be talking about a vacuum of leadership in the midst of these huge crises.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
35 Comments
I agree with Waters.
Part of the problem with Bush was that he led so lethargically after 2006 that Americans, especially young Americans, were getting the wrong idea about the office (short work days, no time in front of the press, and more vacation than any other president led to extremely Bush’s poor expression of events and no expression of ideas, none). Meanwhile the financial lives of Americans was completely blown up. There’s a hole now where before there were 401ks, plans for retirement, travel, and philanthropy.
Most, and I do mean most, Americans have no idea what’s happened. In these cases it’s human nature to imprint or create a narrative to explain events. The odds are overwhelming that that narrative would be both factually incorrect and deleterious to American civic discourse in the absence of vigorous leadership.
Bush’s leadership style is exactly the wrong prescription for the problems we’ve created for our country since 1980 or so (and let’s face it, American leadership since 1980 culminated in the economy we have today). More than ever we require leadership that’s not only strong, but that is smart enough to navigate the minefield we’ve created over the past 30 years.
Certainly President Obama is filling the vacuum the previous president left, and that could easily have come to seem an American norm.
Thank god we didn’t make a perhaps fatal error and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Bush sent out surrogates to tell his tall tales for him because, well, he’s such a lousy speaker.
Obama is the best the democrats have, so he’s carrying the water here. Too bad the democrats dont have a strong bench to help him out.
But then, the preznit’s job IS the bully pulpit. No one can explain things with a smile the way he can. The wonks can manage the shop without him while he’s rallying the people.
It’s just the stark contrast between a pres of the people and one that spent every available moment back on the ranch clearing brush.
I heard a mindless bushie woman call in and complain what should she do, her investments had crashed under Obama!
That gigantic sucking sound we’ve heard for the last 8 yrs. was caused by a vacuum of leadership.
I bet more than 50 percent of people who voted for Obama were attracted by his speaking style.
This is the style of speaking the old deep South Minister – adopted by Black Ministers in general and it seems Barack Obama, Jr.
Of course, this is what attracts some to church as well. But, after awhile, when the ‘new’ wears off and the ‘what have you done for me lately’ doesn’t seem to come around as often, those who were once attracted by the ‘voice’ start to drift away.
Soon, the rev-er-rund Obama will be passing around the gas, carbon and new taxes ‘collection plate.’
We’ll see how popular he stays once Obama starts digging deep into your pocketbooks.
Reagan was pretty good at reading his lines. Obama not only reads his lines, but writes them too.
Obama’s address to congress was watched by 52 mil., bush first address, by 32 mil.
Doesn’t sound like overexposure to me.
This not about Bush but, the Messiah. I think he adores being in the limelight, just like a dictator.
I think it’s great he’s out and about meeting with common folks and not preferring to live in an isolated bubble.
I wonder if he’ll do the sneak into and out of Iraq thing like his predecessor.
I bet Obama doesn’t even have to alter his planned driving routes and keep people in free speech zones.
If we had elected John McCain and Sarah Palin, can you imagine where the country would be now?
-Even if McCain had realized the enormity of the situation (doubtful since even he admitted economics aren’t a strength…or even an interest), it’s extremely doubtful he’d have had the support necessary in the GOP to negotiate with a Democrat Congress to get the only kind of deficit spending legislation passed that will do any good (ie, actual spending, not tax cuts).
-Even if McCain had come to the same realization as President Obama about the need for massive stimulus spending, and even if he’d have had the total support of the GOP (hah hah), it’s doubtful he’d have had the energy to work half as hard as Obama.
-Even if McCain had realized the enormity, had been able to enact a program of stimulus spending, even if he had acted as swiftly as Obama, he’d now have Sarah Palin sitting on his right shoulder, Grover Norquist’s hand inserted in such a way as to manipulate her spine (just as he did Bush’s at first). Being Ms Ambition, Palin would have been working on only one thing, sabotaging McCain so she could climb in Grover’s pocket in 2012.
It would have been a total clusterf*ck.
The USA is on the only possible path out of this mess, given the primary elections of 2008.
Well, apparently bush traveled just as much when he was promoting how to spend the surplus Clinton left him.
Mccain/Palin would’ve been total gridlock. Gridlock is not good when the boat is sinking.
It is important that President Obama travel the country preaching his word and showing off the donkey.
It’s what Jesus would do.
If McCain had been elected, the US would have spent the last month ignoring the domestic economy and rattling sabres against Iran and Syria instead.
We’d have lost an entire month, I have no doubt.
Pretty scary when you realize how real that possibility was (although the election wasn’t close).
Still, economists measure this in terms of “expected outcomes,” which is in theory a measure of the probability of an event multiplied against the cost.
The expected outcome of a McCain/Palin victory was a very bad thing with a HUGE amount of dollars and a negative sign attached to it.
Clinton didn’t leave a surplus. It is a clever parlor trick which donkeys can do. It leaves liberals scratching their heads when they think about the trillion dollar additional national debt Clinton added to the Treasury.
A government cannot “save” money.
It’s like turning water to wine.
When bush was travelling it was “Surpluses as far as the eye can see”, now we have the inverse.
General Powell’s saying about Iraq also goes for Obama and the economy. “The Pottery barn rule”, it breaks and you own it. The President is in a game of chance he will be known either by the winnings or the loses. Both winning and losing can be nothing more than what is perceived by others. He is bound to lose in someone’s eyes no matter what he does. Too Conservative in his actions he is a loser to the Liberals and too liberal in his actions he is a loser to the Conservatives.
The clinton surplus is much like Adam and Eve having belly buttons. Or mathematically trying to get three days and three nights out of Friday to Sunday morning (when the easter bunny rolled back the stone).
Just repeating bush’s line when he wanted to “give back your money”.
writerdog, I agree.
Obama has bet not only the future of the country on his plan, but the future of the Democrat Party as well.
If this fails then Grover will be back with a vengeance. In fact, it’s very likely the US will turn the pages back 100 years or so.
The US will go back to Edwardian concepts of wealth and poverty being linked directly to morality. Things will get pretty Darwinian if Obama is wrong, I have no doubt.
sur?plus: Pronunciation [sur-pluhs, -pluh s] noun, adjective, verb, -plussed or -plused, -plus?sing or -plus?ing. –noun
1. Something that remains above what is used or needed.
2. An amount, quantity, etc., greater than needed.
3. Agricultural produce or a quantity of food grown by a nation or area in excess of its needs, esp. such a quantity of food purchased and stored by a governmental program of guaranteeing farmers a specific price for certain crops.
4. An amount of assets in excess of what is requisite to meet liabilities.
5. A false condition when a nations liabilities (debt) is vastly greater than the revenue available to liability accounts. Mathematically proven by the formula national debt – surplus revenue = lower national debt. An example: In the late 20th century, the former United States democracy had higher national debt after reporting a huge surplus during the very same accounting period.
6. A condition which exists when consumers make the minimum payment on outstanding credit card bills, yet the outstanding balance is higher after the minimum payment.
7. A figment of imagination in uneducated democrats minds.
sur-plus:
8. A condition which is already archaic in connection with the Socialist States of America. Useage of the term will be forgotten early in the 21st century.
A common theme of Obama’s plans. Soak the taxpayers and increase reliance on government by the brain numbed masses while reducing the role of the private sector.
———–
Charity tax limits upset many
Stephen Dinan (Contact) and David R. Sands (Contact)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama’s budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers’ charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers’ scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering.
By reaching so broadly with his $4 trillion 2010 budget plan, and the giant deficits it will incur, Mr. Obama put his hard-won election mandate on the line, saying if lawmakers want to do big things – from boosting education and clean energy technology to overhauling health care – they will have to find ways to pay for it.
“This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they’ve behaved in the past,” he said. “We’ve already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving.”
…Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it’s impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear – less philanthropic giving.
Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/charity-tax-challenged-by-political-friends/
Look out, chaplain, reg, et. al, the dreaded SOCIALISTS are coming!!
Run, run!!!
Pffffffttt
Dennis
“This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they’ve behaved in the past,” he said. “We’ve already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving.”
I doubt that.
For example, many people actually find utility in giving money away voluntarily (tithing, etc.). (Utility is econ shorthand for “pleasure”)
I doubt they’ll want to stop feeling good just because it costs a little bit more.
outlander posted February 28, 2009 at 10:10 am
—————-
LOL!
outlander relies on Rev. Moon’s paper.
Obama knows he’s bet the farm. He’s said so. I think it’s a losing bet myself. The way out is always stringent austerity. Raise interest rates so savings matters, cut all social programs to the bone, withdraw every troop from every country over seas; slash the military to about $200 billion a year; begin energy programs that really matter by decentralizing it, go for the ultimate battery so wind and solar power can work, decentralize the economy, loosen up on regulations so people can work at home. On and on.
I love Obama, but we don’t need change. We need revolution. When the money collapses, we’ll all be one, at least. If we keep on with this borrowing we’re no different than Zimbabwe (sp?).
We’ll never go back to the way it was. The way it was caused this meltdown. The way forward is localized economies and community. Ha! We’ll chose mega war. Just wait and see. The Cons on this board can’t wait. They might even get brown uniforms to march around in.
beber
Posted February 28, 2009 at 11:36 am | Permalink
Obama knows he’s bet the farm. He’s said so. I think it’s a losing bet myself. The way out is always stringent austerity. Raise interest rates so savings matters, cut all social programs to the bone, withdraw every troop from every country over seas; slash the military to about $200 billion a year; begin energy programs that really matter by decentralizing it, go for the ultimate battery so wind and solar power can work, decentralize the economy, loosen up on regulations so people can work at home. On and on.
—
That would work, but it’s a pill too bitter for consumption. It would lead to a very ugly dog fight over what scraps remain in a shattered economy.
The problem is that we’re incapable taking such draconian action against entrenched interests in this country. Those interests include, but are not limited to, the military/industrial/Congressional 3-headed budget sponge, Wall Street (which may die anyway), entitlements like SS & Medicare, Big Oil, Big Pharma, unions, etc.
Your plan should be step 2 in a bigger plan. Step 1 would be to eliminate the legal ease with which lobbyists can run for office, win, lose, and go back to K Street. If that swinging door were to be shut now, then I think dogfights in the future wouldn’t be so ugly or so unfair.
If the swinging door between Congress and K Street were sealed shut permanently, then we Americans could probably stand your bitter pill. If things were fairer, that kind of pain would be brief, like a lightning strike.
The US economy would then grow back like a burnt forest in spring: fast and everywhere.
The US economy would then grow back like a burnt forest in spring: fast and everywhere.
————-
I like that simile Pedant. Nice contrast to trying to prop up dead, decaying old forest.
I think what would really help, is if we can take some of the financial aspects out of our elections. We need Politicians running our country that are not motivated by money, but are more motivated by improving our country. Right now, it’s not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for your pocket book. We do have Politicians in our government that care more about this country than money, but it’s kind of hard for them to make a difference when their caught in the middle of profit wars. Plus there needs to be more transparency, we need to know what sort of Social Engineering experiments, Special Interest groups conduct through political action, then we need to question their actions. Are their actions, meant to improve this country, or meant to improve their pocket books. Besides that, we need more funding to Watch Dog, and Whistle Blower groups, these guys are, our first line of defense against Governmental corruption, their the ones that dedicate their lives to holding our government accountable to the laws they make, we’d have a lot less greed driven hypocrites if people are held accountable. Our government is a living, breathing body, and we have to look at greed and corruption as a disease in the body of politics. We need transparency to locate all the tumors, eliminate the true disease, and keep our governmental body, healthy.
By WE Blog standards, this turned into an orphan thread because no one buys the premise.
With his approval rating hovering between 68 and 80%, it seems the people of America like seeing the new President, a smart and thoughtful practical man who actually knows what he’s talking about.
(It might just be the curiosity factor since we’ve seen nothing like that from the Oval Office in eight years.)
No excuses folks . . . . .
========================================
RUSH LIMBAUGH .. monday thru Friday .. 11:06 am thru 2:00 pm [ http://www.640wgst.com/cc-common/streaming_new/index.html?refreshed=yes ] keep up the good work Rush .. we love you
========================================
no excuses