A Turning Tide?

[Freemason]

Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.

Howard Fineman Fineman: Establishment Starts to Turn on Obama | Newsweek Voices - Howard Fineman | Newsweek.com


Surfer that he is, President Obama should know a riptide when he's in one. The center usually is the safest, most productive place in politics, but perhaps not now, not in a once-in-a-century economic crisis.

Swimming in the middle, he's denounced as a socialist by conservatives, criticized as a polite accommodationist by government-is-the-answer liberals, and increasingly, dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats.


We started seeing this happen with the Blue Dogs in the House. For some reason the Speaker never considers them. I guess she's to busy worry about getting a military jet to fly her around. Bring Cuba in from the cold will not set well with several members in the House as well as the Senate. So, I guess the President is right when he mentions his failing grades.

Of course, the news didn't help today with the Freeman problem.

[fmb]

Obama has a hell of a lot on his plate. Besides jumping into his god awful stimulus package, he has dispatched numerous diplomatic staff to the far corners of the earth. He's attempting to start talks to fix or correct things in Europe, with the Russians, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and those bastards in the Caucuses (sp??).

That's a tremendous amount of shit he's put on his plate. If he can pull most of this off, he'll definitely earn his stripes as a messiah. If he doesn't, people will be on him like sharks on a bleeding surfer.

I hope he does well. If he doesn't, the next four years will be tough.

[Freemason]

We see on Drudge his budget doesn't have the votes needed. It seems to me that he should keep his focus on the economy. His agenda being full is his choice. We heard today from the VP that the west is not winning the war on terror. Warren Buffett pretty much on CNBC's Squawk Box program, "Job one is to win the war. Job -- the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throats. I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said that a war is a terrible thing to waste and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things. It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective to try and muddle it up with a whole bunch of other things."

Btw, if the congress changes hands in two years we could see some small steps made in approving things. However, I read today where the Speaker is on course for a new stimulus package and the WH said that the recent attacks in Iraq has nothing to do with Obama's withdrawal plans. These two issues are not good.

[fmb]

Originally Posted by Freemason

We see on Drudge his budget doesn't have the votes needed. It seems to me that he should keep his focus on the economy.

There are many folks which would agree with this portion of your post. Personally, I'd like to see him keep his eye on the economic ball and maintain some forward momentum with this subject. Personally, I don't agree with HOW he's approaching the economy, but I have to give him credit for doing something about the economic situation.

Originally Posted by Freemason

We heard today from the VP that the west is not winning the war on terror. Warren Buffett pretty much on CNBC's Squawk Box program, "Job one is to win the war. Job -- the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war, and job three.

VP? Hell, two days ago during an interview Obama was asked if we're winning the war in Afghanistan and his reply was an emphatic, "No". He's sending an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, but I haven't seen any statement as to what the objectives are to be attained with this increase in troops. A policy must be formulated so our military can know what the end result of this war will be.

Obama must give up on many of his diplomatic missions. Rightly, his focus must mean "winning" the economic war. Our ability to fight is limited by our ability to bring to bear our economy. Bin Laden has repeatedly spoke about our strength: our economy. Bin Laden has often said the key to winning any battles with the US is to negatively impact our economy.

Also, Obama is asking our NATO allies to increase troop levels as we increase our troop levels. He shouldn't forget the economic downturn has impacted Europe much more significantly than the US. It takes mucho capital to field and support troops in a barren, faraway, hostile land.

Originally Posted by Freemason

I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said that a war is a terrible thing to waste and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things.

Hell yeah, Roosevelt rammed through a bunch of things. He put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps; suspended habeus corpus; suspended the production of consumer items; and rationed gasoline, food, silk, and rubber, amongst other things.

[Krasch]

I agree that Obama should pare down the focus and cease trying to be all things to all people. He won the election already, it's over. Trying to be the jack-of-all-trades just ensures he's going to suck at all the tasks he's taken on.

He needs to cut it back so that he can give the remaining items decent atention and care, and do an exemplary job with them.

[Freemason]

Originally Posted by fmb

There are many folks which would agree with this portion of your post. Personally, I'd like to see him keep his eye on the economic ball and maintain some forward momentum with this subject. Personally, I don't agree with HOW he's approaching the economy, but I have to give him credit for doing something about the economic situation.


VP? Hell, two days ago during an interview Obama was asked if we're winning the war in Afghanistan and his reply was an emphatic, "No". He's sending an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, but I haven't seen any statement as to what the objectives are to be attained with this increase in troops. A policy must be formulated so our military can know what the end result of this war will be.

Obama must give up on many of his diplomatic missions. Rightly, his focus must mean "winning" the economic war. Our ability to fight is limited by our ability to bring to bear our economy. Bin Laden has repeatedly spoke about our strength: our economy. Bin Laden has often said the key to winning any battles with the US is to negatively impact our economy.

Also, Obama is asking our NATO allies to increase troop levels as we increase our troop levels. He shouldn't forget the economic downturn has impacted Europe much more significantly than the US. It takes mucho capital to field and support troops in a barren, faraway, hostile land.


Hell yeah, Roosevelt rammed through a bunch of things. He put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps; suspended habeus corpus; suspended the production of consumer items; and rationed gasoline, food, silk, and rubber, amongst other things.

I didn't see/read Obama's comments until later in the evening yesterday. The man seems to be having a hard time speaking positively about our country I have noticed almost across the board. I hope that changes.

I agree with your remarks concerning Roosevelt I simply didn't recall most of those issues. Great points.

[Freemason]

Originally Posted by Krasch

I agree that Obama should pare down the focus and cease trying to be all things to all people. He won the election already, it's over. Trying to be the jack-of-all-trades just ensures he's going to suck at all the tasks he's taken on.

He needs to cut it back so that he can give the remaining items decent atention and care, and do an exemplary job with them.

I believe he is trying to follow the pattern Clinton established. Always on the stump.

He may be listening to to many people within his circle. He is also going to overload congress which will not work well for him in the long run. Obama did an exemplary job running for the office, but once there I do agree with others that he may not have been ready for the job.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/ I just read this which kind of supports my point in another person's opinion. Emanuel as chief of staff should go first...imo.

One more point if I may. I believe it was a mistake recycling the Clinton folks. Surely there was fresh blood within the Democrat party he could have hired. JMHO.