After only 2 1/2 months of President-Elect Obama and 2 1/2 weeks of President Obama and already it’s apparent that the change that Obama brings is really the same old brand of politics. His rhetoric, full of inspiration and hope during the election, has almost degraded to whining. Here are 4 things that show you that only the names in the White House have changed.
1. Demanding swift action on his stimulus plan - A plan he talked about for two months during his transition and waited until he was in office to enact. Democrats have had control of congress for two years. There is no reason they could not have started the process back when Obama was elected. Obama had two months to work things out with republicans. Is it really wisdom to put the solution to end financial crisis on hold to ensure Obama was President by the time the bill made it to the White House? If things are so dire and we cannot wait, then he and congress must take the blame for waiting until January.
2. The bait and switch - Obama is claiming that his plan is new and a step away from the failed Republican policies. Yet, much of this round of spending is from the same playbook that Bush used with the June 2008 stimulus. Very original! Now we are talking about more money for banks too. I remember that Bush move from September. I really don’t see a difference between irresponsible Republican spending and irresponsible Democrat spending.
3. Reaching across the isle - I don’t even know how he’s claiming this one. He ate dinner with congressional Republicans, told them he was serious in implementing some of their ideas, but not one Republican idea made it’s way into the stimulus. That’s actually the opposite of bipartisan. If I eat dinner at someone’s wedding reception, that doesn’t mean that I can now say that I am related. Instead of being a leader and working out a compromise, he’d rather take political swipes and resort to condescending talk. Most of his anger is over the discussion taking place in talk radio, but projected to congressional Republicans. A little childish.
4. An end to fear and an era of hope - really? All I have to say is that Obama has not made things sound very hopeful. In fact, it’s all doom and gloom since he took office. I hope Obama learns to hope again. Now that he’s in a bind and wants his way, he’s out there to scare everyone. Where has that maneuver been used before.
I don’t know about you, but doesn’t all of this sound historically familiar?
1 comment
#1 - It was not within Obama's purview to do much but talk to people before his inauguration... and clearly made this point in hsi acceptance speech in saying "there is only one president at a time." Before January, there were not enough democrats to pass a bill prior to Obama's ascension to the presidency, and the GOP did not want to have anything to do with the stimulus bill (which at the time was for the banks). That's where the Jan. 20th to the Feb. 17th deadline comes from. In fact, many applauded Obama for hitting the ground running best he could while he was essentially "powerless" (he was no longer a senator, and was not yet president).
February 25, 2009 at 6:05 AM#2 Much the the Bush-like aspects of the stimulus were added to appease the GOP - and they still didnt vote for it. However, I know your handle on economic matters is far greater than mine, I'm still a bit confused on the banks.
#3 If I do have one criticism of how the stimulus package was handled, I do not think they Dems method of bipartosanship was useful... As I have sadi before, 5 tops Dems, 5 top GOPs, Geitner, Summers, and a few top economists shoulve been locked in a room a a few weeks banging this out. I hope future bills are crafted in a more constructive fashion.
#4 I do agree with you that his choice of words is not awe-inspiring. Still I prefer it to the "wool-over-the-eyes" appraoch Bush used. Obama is a very good learner, and better adapter... I think he will learn how to balance truth and transparency with hopefull messages as well
Post a Comment