Having run interference for Barack Obama throughout the campaign, the press is now preparing to do the same once he has been sworn in. A common theme, as the media anticipate Barack's ascendancy, is how tough he has it. Today's Associated Press account is typical: "Like Lincoln and FDR, Obama faces nation in crisis:"
All presidents are tested. Few walk into the Oval Office when the nation is in the throes of multiple crises.
Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President-elect Obama is facing a banking emergency.
Like Abraham Lincoln, Obama is trying to patch up national divisions. ...
"With two wars and an economic crisis, this is one step away from what Lincoln or FDR faced," said Terry Sullivan, associate professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Well, yes, I can see the analogies. Like Lincoln, Obama will take office confronted by a threat of secession and civil war from the states that supported his opponent. No, wait....
The better analogy must be Roosevelt, who took office with the nation more than two years into a depression and with unemployment at 25%. Hey, at 6.5%, we're a quarter of the way there! In addition, of course, not only did Roosevelt face a "banking crisis" of his own, he had to worry about fascism rising in Europe and the threat of world war.
The "two wars" meme is one we're hearing a lot, but by historical standards it's pretty silly. The war in Iraq is nearly won, while the Afghan conflict has so far claimed the lives of 609 American military personnel, every one of them a hero. But still: around 400,000 American servicemen died in World War II. Let's have a little sense of perspective here.
Actually, it isn't just Lincoln and Roosevelt who took office under more difficult conditions than Obama. Think of Truman; World War II was still raging and he had to decide to use atomic weapons to bring it to an end; beyond that, the Soviet threat was visible on the horizon. Or Eisenhower, who assumed office while the Korean War was going on. Or Richard Nixon: Vietnam and riots in the streets. Or Ronald Reagan, who began his Presidency with unemployment at 7.5 % and inflation at 12%. Was there a banking crisis? Oh yes, interest rates were at 18-20%. Now, THAT was an economic challenge! In addition, not only was the Cold War in full swing, the U.S. was losing with the Soviet Union advancing around the world.
It's not hard to understand what lies behind the current spate of articles on how tough Barack has it. Reporters and editors are preparing the battlefield. They are concerned that Obama's first year or two won't appear to be notably successful, so they're lining up excuses in advance. How long are they willing to continue to cut their candidate some slack?
Knowing his opening moves will be widely scrutinized, Obama tried to roll back expectations on election night.
"Our climb will be steep," he said. "We may not get there in one year or even in one term."
Yet he remained upbeat as did Roosevelt, who took the reins of a nation in the depths of the Depression.
That answers the question, I think. The press is already preparing to run interference for Obama's campaign for a second term.
PAUL adds: The two wars that Obama and his cheerleaders harp on have ensured that Obama won't have to deal with two regimes that attacked and/or abetted attacks on us and/or our allies during the presidencies of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. The two wars are part of a larger effort that has routed terrorists around the world and vastly decreased the likelihood of a successful attack on the U.S. during Obama's administration.
Ironically, though, Obama actually does have it tough when it comes to one foreign situation that the Bush administration hasn't successfully handled -- Iran's substantial progress towards developing nuclear weapons. For obvious reasons, Obama and his cheerleaders are less inclined to portray this as a crisis. The AP story John links to above makes no mention of Iran.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Importance of Being Careful
November 9, 2008 Posted by John at 10:04 AM
The only news Barack Obama made in his first post-election press conference was when, in a classless moment, he falsely ridiculed Nancy Reagan for holding "seances" in the White House. He was then compelled to call her to apologize for what he termed his "careless remark."
It appears that Obama may have been careless again yesterday, with international consequences. He spoke with the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, on the telephone. Afterward, Kaczynski wrote that Obama "said that the missile-defense project would continue." The Obama camp then released a statement to the effect that Obama had said no such thing: "President Kaczynski raised missile defense but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it."
It's possible that President Kaczynski deliberately misquoted Obama, but that seems highly unlikely. It's much more probable that Obama indulged in his usual ambiguity, failed to choose his words carefully, and thereby conveyed a misleading impression.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated.
The only news Barack Obama made in his first post-election press conference was when, in a classless moment, he falsely ridiculed Nancy Reagan for holding "seances" in the White House. He was then compelled to call her to apologize for what he termed his "careless remark."
It appears that Obama may have been careless again yesterday, with international consequences. He spoke with the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, on the telephone. Afterward, Kaczynski wrote that Obama "said that the missile-defense project would continue." The Obama camp then released a statement to the effect that Obama had said no such thing: "President Kaczynski raised missile defense but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it."
It's possible that President Kaczynski deliberately misquoted Obama, but that seems highly unlikely. It's much more probable that Obama indulged in his usual ambiguity, failed to choose his words carefully, and thereby conveyed a misleading impression.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated.
Another scarry thing said by russians about Obama as president.
Pravda records the enthusiastic reaction of Russian politicians toward the election of Barack Obama. Most perceptive, I think, is the head of Russia's Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov:
All Republican presidents have always defended national interests, ignoring the interests of other countries of the world. The new US president cannot but understand that it is impossible to seek and find answers to many global issues without the participation of such a great country as Russia.
All Republican presidents have always defended national interests, ignoring the interests of other countries of the world. The new US president cannot but understand that it is impossible to seek and find answers to many global issues without the participation of such a great country as Russia.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Puttin to return to Kremlin now that U.S will be weak under president Obama.
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev could resign from his post in 2009 to pave the way for Vladimir Putin to return to the Kremlin, Vedomosti newspaper reported on Thursday, citing an unidentified source close to the Kremlin.
Medvedev Wednesday proposed increasing the presidential term to six years from four years, a step the newspaper said was part of a plan drawn up by Vladislav Surkov, who serves as Medvedev's first deputy chief of staff.
Under the plan, Medvedev could implement changes to the constitution and unpopular social reforms "so that Putin could return to the Kremlin for a longer period," the newspaper said.
Medvedev Wednesday proposed increasing the presidential term to six years from four years, a step the newspaper said was part of a plan drawn up by Vladislav Surkov, who serves as Medvedev's first deputy chief of staff.
Under the plan, Medvedev could implement changes to the constitution and unpopular social reforms "so that Putin could return to the Kremlin for a longer period," the newspaper said.
Obama day 2
Market dropped 440 points. The businesses are very scared. The threat of tax increases and the raising of the capital gains taxes will lower the amount of money that investors will put in the market.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Israel-Hamas violence disrupts Gaza truce
Kassam attacks from Gaza continued on Wednesday afternoon with a rocket landing between Sderot and the Sha'ar Hanegev region. No one was wounded and no damage was reported.
Rockets and mortar shells fired into Israel after IDF counter-terror operation in Gaza
In total, some 40 Kassam rockets and mortar shells were fired since the IDF's counter-terror tunnel operation overnight Tuesday.
In what was the worst outbreak of violence since a shaky cease-fire took effect in June, two of the rockets hit Ashkelon, one landing near a school and sending six people into shock.
On Tuesday night, seven IDF soldiers were wounded and six gunmen were reported killed in clashes which erupted when IDF special forces entered Gaza in order to blow up a tunnel dug by Hamas terrorists for the purpose of kidnapping IDF soldiers.
Rockets and mortar shells fired into Israel after IDF counter-terror operation in Gaza
In total, some 40 Kassam rockets and mortar shells were fired since the IDF's counter-terror tunnel operation overnight Tuesday.
In what was the worst outbreak of violence since a shaky cease-fire took effect in June, two of the rockets hit Ashkelon, one landing near a school and sending six people into shock.
On Tuesday night, seven IDF soldiers were wounded and six gunmen were reported killed in clashes which erupted when IDF special forces entered Gaza in order to blow up a tunnel dug by Hamas terrorists for the purpose of kidnapping IDF soldiers.
President Dmitri Medvedev orders missiles deployed in Europe as world hails Obama
President Dmitri Medvedev took advantage of the euphoria in America today to order the deployment of missiles inside Europe as a response to US plans for a missile defence shield.
Speaking within hours of Barack Obama's election as the new US President, Mr Medvedev announced that Russia would base Iskander missiles in its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad next to the border with Poland.
He did not say whether the short-range missiles would carry nuclear warheads. Mr Medvedev also cancelled earlier plans to withdraw three intercontinental ballistic missile regiments from western Russia.
"An Iskander missile system will be deployed in the Kaliningrad region to neutralise if necessary the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe," Mr Medvedev said in his first state-of-the-nation address.
He added that Russia was also ready to deploy its navy and to install electronic jamming devices to interfere with the US shield, which involves the deployment of a radar station in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland.
Speaking within hours of Barack Obama's election as the new US President, Mr Medvedev announced that Russia would base Iskander missiles in its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad next to the border with Poland.
He did not say whether the short-range missiles would carry nuclear warheads. Mr Medvedev also cancelled earlier plans to withdraw three intercontinental ballistic missile regiments from western Russia.
"An Iskander missile system will be deployed in the Kaliningrad region to neutralise if necessary the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe," Mr Medvedev said in his first state-of-the-nation address.
He added that Russia was also ready to deploy its navy and to install electronic jamming devices to interfere with the US shield, which involves the deployment of a radar station in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sarah Palin cleared of all ethical wrong doing just before election.
Imagine this on the day before the election.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - This time, Gov. Sarah Palin can claim vindication against allegations that she abused her power in office by firing her public safety commissioner.
Palin - running mate of Republican presidential candidate John McCain - violated no ethics laws, according to a report released by the state personnel board on the eve of Election Day. An earlier, separate investigation by the Legislature found that Palin had abused her office.
"There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the personnel board's report said.
"The Governor is grateful that this investigation has provided a fair and impartial review of this matter and upholds the Governor's ability to take measures when necessary to ensure that Alaskans have the best possible team working to serve them," her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said in a statement after the report was released Monday.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - This time, Gov. Sarah Palin can claim vindication against allegations that she abused her power in office by firing her public safety commissioner.
Palin - running mate of Republican presidential candidate John McCain - violated no ethics laws, according to a report released by the state personnel board on the eve of Election Day. An earlier, separate investigation by the Legislature found that Palin had abused her office.
"There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the personnel board's report said.
"The Governor is grateful that this investigation has provided a fair and impartial review of this matter and upholds the Governor's ability to take measures when necessary to ensure that Alaskans have the best possible team working to serve them," her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said in a statement after the report was released Monday.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Who’s to blame for the financial crisis — and why does that matter?
The 109th Congress has become the focus of hindsight in the financial meltdown of the past few days. With perhaps as much as one trillion dollars in federal funds in play for bailouts under a Bush administration proposal, people want to know why no one saw this coming before now. As Kevin Hassett reports at Bloomberg, Congress had an opportunity to force better practices on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but some familiar names failed to act:
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission’s chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie’s position on the relevant accounting issue was not even “on the page” of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a “world-class regulator” that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Alan Greenspan told Congress that they needed to act, and quickly:
If Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”
What happened? Despite moves from Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Elizabeth Dole, and John McCain to get more regulatory oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress took no action. Why? Fannie and Freddie had already co-opted Chris Dodd with over $130,000 in campaign contributions over 20 years, and over $120,000 to Barack Obama over less than four years. Hillary Clinton took tens of thousands in eight years, and Chuck Schumer also opposed any new regulation on markets that Congress had forced open.
We can play blame games for the next several months and years, but what would be the point? In this case, there is a point, and it couldn’t be more clear or important. We have two candidates running for President who would bring much different styles to executive authority over regulatory responsibility. Barack Obama and his allies took the money and stayed on the sidelines rather than take proactive action to resolve the credit crisis. McCain and his co-sponsors of this bill had the right idea and instincts, but could not get any cooperation from Clinton, Schumer, or Obama.
Does this mean that Obama gets the entire blame for the financial crisis? Of course not; it’s shared among many people who failed to act, and some who acted poorly to create the problem in the first place by mandating loans to ill-qualified lenders and then allowed those loans to form the basis of widely-traded securities. McCain doesn’t become the sole protagonist in this morality play, either. However, this demonstrates the qualities of both judgment and leadership of both men — and those two qualities are critical for determining which man should be running the executive branch for the next four years.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission’s chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie’s position on the relevant accounting issue was not even “on the page” of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a “world-class regulator” that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Alan Greenspan told Congress that they needed to act, and quickly:
If Fannie and Freddie “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”
What happened? Despite moves from Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, Elizabeth Dole, and John McCain to get more regulatory oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress took no action. Why? Fannie and Freddie had already co-opted Chris Dodd with over $130,000 in campaign contributions over 20 years, and over $120,000 to Barack Obama over less than four years. Hillary Clinton took tens of thousands in eight years, and Chuck Schumer also opposed any new regulation on markets that Congress had forced open.
We can play blame games for the next several months and years, but what would be the point? In this case, there is a point, and it couldn’t be more clear or important. We have two candidates running for President who would bring much different styles to executive authority over regulatory responsibility. Barack Obama and his allies took the money and stayed on the sidelines rather than take proactive action to resolve the credit crisis. McCain and his co-sponsors of this bill had the right idea and instincts, but could not get any cooperation from Clinton, Schumer, or Obama.
Does this mean that Obama gets the entire blame for the financial crisis? Of course not; it’s shared among many people who failed to act, and some who acted poorly to create the problem in the first place by mandating loans to ill-qualified lenders and then allowed those loans to form the basis of widely-traded securities. McCain doesn’t become the sole protagonist in this morality play, either. However, this demonstrates the qualities of both judgment and leadership of both men — and those two qualities are critical for determining which man should be running the executive branch for the next four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)