The worst post-war President is at it again. Jimmy Carter cannot avoid looking like a fool. Rather than gracefully retiring to private life (George Bush) or serving as a relatively quiet, respectful behind-the-scenes political force (Bill Clinton), Carter is drawn to political controversies like a moth to a flame. He has recently been back in the news in two most unpleasant ways.
Having caused uproars with his biased anti-Israel book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” a few years ago and with his visit with the terrorist group Hamas this past June, Jimmy Carter is well known for his warped worldviews. Fortunately for Carter, his book now has the honor of making a top-three recommended reading list. This past Monday, Osama Bin Laden included “Peace Not Apartheid” alongside Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” as recommended reading. Bin Laden claimed that “After you read the suggested books, you will know the truth, and you will be greatly shocked by the scale of concealment that has been exercised on you.” President Carter should feel proud of the striking support from one of America’s greatest friends.
If Bin Laden’s endorsement was not enough, Carter stirred-up a hornet’s nest of controversy by claiming that the majority of opposition to President Obama is based on racism. In an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Carter stated, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American.” Obama’s administration has naturally distanced itself from his comments, patently denying a racial link.
As discussed in a prior post, “You Lie” Is Joe Wilson a Racist?, Carter’s infusion of racism into political debates is reprehensible. It is unclear what Carter is attempting to accomplish, as such divisive talk cannot be helpful to the President. Such remarks are patently absurd and have only enraged most Americans. After all, President-elect Obama held an approval rating of 70% in November 2008. The roughly 20% that have since changed their minds and currently disapprove of his policies could not have become rampant racists over the past year. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that the 30% that did not approve of Obama to begin with are all racists. Contrary to Carter’s and his asinine cronies’ beliefs, most disagreement with Obama is politically, not racially, motivated.
The fact of the matter is that Carter is entirely disconnected with reality. Time after time he proves that he has no understanding of what goes on outside of his narrow world-view. Carter is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party that he professes to support. He was a miserable failure as a President. What makes him believe that he can do any better now as the senile “elder statesman”? Maybe he should just stick to peanut farming.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
"You Lie" Is Joe Wilson a Racist?
In an overwhelmingly partisan vote, the House of Representatives expressed its disapproval of Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech last week. Wilson’s interruption of the President was certainly inappropriate, prompting the Representative to properly apologize to Obama. Some Democrats, however, are increasing the poisonous atmosphere in Congress through their insistence on drawing race into the picture.
Before Congress’s vote, Hank Johnson, D-Ga absurdly stated that without action taken against Wilson people would be wearing “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" – a direct reference to the Ku Klux Klan. Likewise, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee, D-Ca, said that we “can't sweep race under the rug — racism is still a factor and must be addressed.” While not directly in response to the Wilson affair, former President Jimmy Carter echoed this sentiment. He stated that “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man."
The Left’s fixation with bringing race into the discussion is disingenuous and reprehensible. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to suggest that Rep. Wilson’s or any American’s disagreement with Obama’s and the Democrat’s policies have anything to do with race. Wilson’s outburst, while unacceptable in that forum, was the result of well-thought out policy differences, not a deep-seeded racism. The fact that this was the first time a President has been shouted down while speaking on the floor of the House is a testament to the divisiveness and partisanship that has grown under the current administration. The fact that a Representative, who by all accounts is respected and respectful, broke such rules of decorum only speaks to the fact that the administration’s policies are threatening to a vast swath of America.
The Democrat’s endeavors to paint this as racism, is simply an attempt to stifle discussion. By trying to divert the discussion, they are seeking to avoid real discourse over the issues. While Wilson should have addressed his concerns in another forum, Democrats are willing to pull out every stop to silence him. President Carter’s blanket statement is even more dangerous. To label any disagreement with the President as racism takes America down a perilous path. Under such a Carteresque world-view dissent is not allowed and the opposition is silenced.
The only issue of race in any of this is in the heads of these Democratic statesmen. Whether they truly believe these disagreements with the administration are race-based or whether they are simply using race as a political tool to silence Republicans, the Democrats are sorely misguided. It is time for the Democrats to mature past the siren’s call of race as their fall-back explanation for every disagreement with Republicans. Americans care far more about good policy than the skin-color of the individual proposing it. If Democrats are so naïve to think otherwise, they are hurting themselves and America.
Before Congress’s vote, Hank Johnson, D-Ga absurdly stated that without action taken against Wilson people would be wearing “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" – a direct reference to the Ku Klux Klan. Likewise, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Barbara Lee, D-Ca, said that we “can't sweep race under the rug — racism is still a factor and must be addressed.” While not directly in response to the Wilson affair, former President Jimmy Carter echoed this sentiment. He stated that “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man."
The Left’s fixation with bringing race into the discussion is disingenuous and reprehensible. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to suggest that Rep. Wilson’s or any American’s disagreement with Obama’s and the Democrat’s policies have anything to do with race. Wilson’s outburst, while unacceptable in that forum, was the result of well-thought out policy differences, not a deep-seeded racism. The fact that this was the first time a President has been shouted down while speaking on the floor of the House is a testament to the divisiveness and partisanship that has grown under the current administration. The fact that a Representative, who by all accounts is respected and respectful, broke such rules of decorum only speaks to the fact that the administration’s policies are threatening to a vast swath of America.
The Democrat’s endeavors to paint this as racism, is simply an attempt to stifle discussion. By trying to divert the discussion, they are seeking to avoid real discourse over the issues. While Wilson should have addressed his concerns in another forum, Democrats are willing to pull out every stop to silence him. President Carter’s blanket statement is even more dangerous. To label any disagreement with the President as racism takes America down a perilous path. Under such a Carteresque world-view dissent is not allowed and the opposition is silenced.
The only issue of race in any of this is in the heads of these Democratic statesmen. Whether they truly believe these disagreements with the administration are race-based or whether they are simply using race as a political tool to silence Republicans, the Democrats are sorely misguided. It is time for the Democrats to mature past the siren’s call of race as their fall-back explanation for every disagreement with Republicans. Americans care far more about good policy than the skin-color of the individual proposing it. If Democrats are so naïve to think otherwise, they are hurting themselves and America.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Yale Offends the West: The Muhammad Cartoons
The infamous Muhammad cartoons are back in the news again. This time the Danish caricatures that were implicated in the worldwide uproars in 2005 were edited out of a new book by the Yale University Press. Yale’s decision is a despicable display of spinelessness.
Yale offers two unsatisfactory explanations for its actions. First, the university cites fear of violence. This implies that if someone has something controversial to say, one only needs to threaten violence to silence the perspective. This is counter to the very basis of American free-speech. Since when do we silence a voice because one group throws a tantrum? If Muslims respond to the republication of the cartoons with violence they are in the wrong- not the publisher. Using potential violence (even if highly likely) as a reason for non-publication, gives those who wish to silence others an unimaginable power.
Second, Yale claims it does not want to offend. This is patently absurd. How many books have been published that offend someone, somewhere? Is it even possible to find a book that is agreeable to everyone? The publishing of any quality piece of writing is bound to offend someone. If literature, journalism, or research were uncontroversial they would seek to have an appeal. Yale’s decision to avoid publication soothes the egos of radical Islam by offending the sensibilities of the free West.
Yale’s dastardly editing speaks to a deeper seeded problem. The West is being brow-beaten into disregarding its own founding principles. Muslim leaders and countries attempt to argue that incidents, such as the publishing of the cartoons, should not be allowed. They perversely argue that blasphemy is discriminatory against Muslims and repressive of their freedoms. Rather than rightfully challenging this warped view, many in the West are conceding to these demands.
This poses a number of problems. First of all, it gives dangerous powers to groups to oppress minority views. Religions are entitled to believe what they will; they are not entitled to demand global orthodoxy. As The Economist points out, those attempting to limit ‘defamation’ of religion represent the antithesis to individual and human rights. These arguments are often couched in the language of freedom, but they serve the opposite aim. Instead, by tiptoeing around the supposed sensitivities of a group and preventing individuals to voice their dissent, we are creating a system that allows repression and forced conformity.
Second, by acceding to this perspective Yale is helping the reactionary forces of the Muslim world demolish years of Western progress. Yale is implicitly replacing the individualism that has defined Western culture with a foreign collectivism. This is a small piece in a dire threat to Western civilization. Western society is built on the individual. If we cannot support the individual in some of the more innocuous facets of life, it is only a matter of time before the assault on our core beliefs begins.
While some may dismiss this event as insignificant, it is anything but. It is a sign of the weakening spirit of the West. Yale’s cowardice is inexcusable. Their actions have granted the enemies of the Western society an easy win.
Yale offers two unsatisfactory explanations for its actions. First, the university cites fear of violence. This implies that if someone has something controversial to say, one only needs to threaten violence to silence the perspective. This is counter to the very basis of American free-speech. Since when do we silence a voice because one group throws a tantrum? If Muslims respond to the republication of the cartoons with violence they are in the wrong- not the publisher. Using potential violence (even if highly likely) as a reason for non-publication, gives those who wish to silence others an unimaginable power.
Second, Yale claims it does not want to offend. This is patently absurd. How many books have been published that offend someone, somewhere? Is it even possible to find a book that is agreeable to everyone? The publishing of any quality piece of writing is bound to offend someone. If literature, journalism, or research were uncontroversial they would seek to have an appeal. Yale’s decision to avoid publication soothes the egos of radical Islam by offending the sensibilities of the free West.
Yale’s dastardly editing speaks to a deeper seeded problem. The West is being brow-beaten into disregarding its own founding principles. Muslim leaders and countries attempt to argue that incidents, such as the publishing of the cartoons, should not be allowed. They perversely argue that blasphemy is discriminatory against Muslims and repressive of their freedoms. Rather than rightfully challenging this warped view, many in the West are conceding to these demands.
This poses a number of problems. First of all, it gives dangerous powers to groups to oppress minority views. Religions are entitled to believe what they will; they are not entitled to demand global orthodoxy. As The Economist points out, those attempting to limit ‘defamation’ of religion represent the antithesis to individual and human rights. These arguments are often couched in the language of freedom, but they serve the opposite aim. Instead, by tiptoeing around the supposed sensitivities of a group and preventing individuals to voice their dissent, we are creating a system that allows repression and forced conformity.
Second, by acceding to this perspective Yale is helping the reactionary forces of the Muslim world demolish years of Western progress. Yale is implicitly replacing the individualism that has defined Western culture with a foreign collectivism. This is a small piece in a dire threat to Western civilization. Western society is built on the individual. If we cannot support the individual in some of the more innocuous facets of life, it is only a matter of time before the assault on our core beliefs begins.
While some may dismiss this event as insignificant, it is anything but. It is a sign of the weakening spirit of the West. Yale’s cowardice is inexcusable. Their actions have granted the enemies of the Western society an easy win.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Carrots in North Korea: Some Smart Foreign Policy
Although Obama’s foreign policy is often off-base, the administration must be commended for its recent handling of the North Korean journalist-cum-hostage situation. Two American journalists, held by Kim Jong-Il’s regime were released after Former President Bill Clinton descended on North Korea.
The exploit was truly a move of smart diplomacy. It allowed the United States to stick course with its current spoken strategy, while enabling sufficient stroking of Kim Jong-Il’s ego to facilitate the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. While the Obama administration has generally claimed non-involvement, it is clear that they played a predominant role in approving and developing the mission. Apparently, much pre-planning occurred; including discussions with the North Koreans on what unofficial American envoy would have high enough stature to make the trip.
This recent event highlights an important characteristic of North Korea – they want things from America. Unlike Iran which views itself largely as a counter-weight and antagonist of America, North Korea sees, at least some aspects of the West which it desires. While not all of North Korea’s behavior can be understood as motivated by wanting something from America, in this instance that is precisely the case. North Korea wanted recognition from the United States– represented by the visitation of a prestigious emissary.
The North Korean desire for items of value gives the United States considerable power over the regime. The U.S. can use these “shiny objects” to coerce North Korea into behaving in an acceptable fashion. In many ways, North Korea is like a defiant child. It wants recognition; it wants to feel important. If it fails to get what it wants it throws a temper-tantrum. However as most parents know, the logic in dealing with such a child (although not always the practice) is straightforward. Misbehavior is punished; good behavior is rewarded.
This is something that the Obama administration needs to exploit. While Bill Clinton's journey into the third pillar of the Axis-of-Evil demonstrates the administration’s understanding of rewarding good behavior, the administration, as has been argued before, has yet to show a strong commitment to punishing misbehavior. A failure to punish misbehavior severely weakens the equally important goal of rewarding good behavior. In fact, it encourages misbehavior. Nations (and people) will misbehave if they can then backtrack and be rewarded for ‘good behavior’.
Because of this, the two tactics in conjunction are necessary when dealing with North Korea. Carrots and sticks will help push the regime in the right direction. Too many carrots, however, will deplete America’s ability to influence North Korea’s behavior. After all, if Kim Jong-Il gets everything he wants he’ll have no incentive to listen to us. While this episode of Clintonian mediation may be a strong and successful example of diplomacy at its best, care must be taken to avoid the mistaken belief that anything has fundamentally changed in the relationship with North Korea. The regime will test the United States again. The administration must be ready to respond with punishment and show the regime what behavior is and is not acceptable.
The exploit was truly a move of smart diplomacy. It allowed the United States to stick course with its current spoken strategy, while enabling sufficient stroking of Kim Jong-Il’s ego to facilitate the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. While the Obama administration has generally claimed non-involvement, it is clear that they played a predominant role in approving and developing the mission. Apparently, much pre-planning occurred; including discussions with the North Koreans on what unofficial American envoy would have high enough stature to make the trip.
This recent event highlights an important characteristic of North Korea – they want things from America. Unlike Iran which views itself largely as a counter-weight and antagonist of America, North Korea sees, at least some aspects of the West which it desires. While not all of North Korea’s behavior can be understood as motivated by wanting something from America, in this instance that is precisely the case. North Korea wanted recognition from the United States– represented by the visitation of a prestigious emissary.
The North Korean desire for items of value gives the United States considerable power over the regime. The U.S. can use these “shiny objects” to coerce North Korea into behaving in an acceptable fashion. In many ways, North Korea is like a defiant child. It wants recognition; it wants to feel important. If it fails to get what it wants it throws a temper-tantrum. However as most parents know, the logic in dealing with such a child (although not always the practice) is straightforward. Misbehavior is punished; good behavior is rewarded.
This is something that the Obama administration needs to exploit. While Bill Clinton's journey into the third pillar of the Axis-of-Evil demonstrates the administration’s understanding of rewarding good behavior, the administration, as has been argued before, has yet to show a strong commitment to punishing misbehavior. A failure to punish misbehavior severely weakens the equally important goal of rewarding good behavior. In fact, it encourages misbehavior. Nations (and people) will misbehave if they can then backtrack and be rewarded for ‘good behavior’.
Because of this, the two tactics in conjunction are necessary when dealing with North Korea. Carrots and sticks will help push the regime in the right direction. Too many carrots, however, will deplete America’s ability to influence North Korea’s behavior. After all, if Kim Jong-Il gets everything he wants he’ll have no incentive to listen to us. While this episode of Clintonian mediation may be a strong and successful example of diplomacy at its best, care must be taken to avoid the mistaken belief that anything has fundamentally changed in the relationship with North Korea. The regime will test the United States again. The administration must be ready to respond with punishment and show the regime what behavior is and is not acceptable.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
What Are They Thinking?!! – Socializing and Destroying Our Economy
On Friday, the House voted to give the government sweeping control over pay in the private sector. This plan continues the radical-leftist Congress’s assault on free enterprise and the capitalist system. Essentially the bill, H.R. 3269, prevents large companies from rewarding their employees in ways that may cause excessive risk taking. What excessive risks are is undefined.
Such a power grab greatly hampers the abilities of companies to structure their businesses according to what works best. While companies certainly have, and will continue, to make mistakes, there is no reason to assume that the government can make better decisions. In fact, there is much reason to believe that government interest does not coincide with what is best for a company. Governments have a whole host of groups that they must pander to; including, constituents, lobbyists, party members, and others.
Government meddling in corporate business strategy can only lead to bad situations where politics trump good business sense, sapping initiative and dampening the industrious and innovative American spirit. In such instances, the government role is inefficient, impractical, and downright foolish. It brings politics into a realm where they don’t belong. The very motivation for greater government involvement is completely imbued with political motivations. Such bills are precisely motivated by the populist rage that the Congressional Democrats are nurturing and harnessing, rather than any objective logic. Destroying the fictitious ‘fat-cat Wall Street’ apparently wins votes, even if it hurts the very Americans who cry for blood.
The damage that this bill could cause is foreshadowed by the government’s meddling in the relationship between Citigroup and one of its prime breadwinners, Andrew Hall. Hall, who runs a division of Citigroup called Phibro, which often earns a large chunk of revenue for the company, is admittedly a well compensated man (he owns a castle). He is now demanding a contractually committed bonus of $100 million. Citigroup, which received a lot of taxpayer cash through the bailout, is under immense pressure to renege.
The tensions in this are obvious. However, whether he is right or wrong, Hall, and his massive amounts of revenue, will leave Citigroup if his contract is not upheld. Citigroup is naturally in a tough position– stuck between the same populist anger that is pressuring the government and a large capital outlay that may reap future rewards. This tough decision is only complicated by the presence of government decision makers who, motivated by reasons not necessarily in line with Citigroup’s financial success, can severely influence what happens.
Proponents argue that government intervention is necessary to mitigate excessive risk taking on Wall Street. However, the excessive risk taking that this bill attempts to eradicate, is the very same excessive risk taking that Congress has helped build into the system. The financial bailout and other such programs encourage risky behavior. After all, if one knows one will not have to suffer the consequences, one will be more likely to take risks. When the suffered consequences do not match the risk level it encourages individuals to have a surplus of hazard. The bailout encourages just that.
Congress is in the process of establishing such a backwards system. If a system cushions the consequences of missteps, it simultaneously encourages missteps to be taken. Ultimately, people and institutions need to be able to feel the pinch in order to learn to avoid behavior in the future. The only alternative to eradicate risk is to have one party dictate every action– compensation, production, consumption. This is a failed political system often called communism.
Such a power grab greatly hampers the abilities of companies to structure their businesses according to what works best. While companies certainly have, and will continue, to make mistakes, there is no reason to assume that the government can make better decisions. In fact, there is much reason to believe that government interest does not coincide with what is best for a company. Governments have a whole host of groups that they must pander to; including, constituents, lobbyists, party members, and others.
Government meddling in corporate business strategy can only lead to bad situations where politics trump good business sense, sapping initiative and dampening the industrious and innovative American spirit. In such instances, the government role is inefficient, impractical, and downright foolish. It brings politics into a realm where they don’t belong. The very motivation for greater government involvement is completely imbued with political motivations. Such bills are precisely motivated by the populist rage that the Congressional Democrats are nurturing and harnessing, rather than any objective logic. Destroying the fictitious ‘fat-cat Wall Street’ apparently wins votes, even if it hurts the very Americans who cry for blood.
The damage that this bill could cause is foreshadowed by the government’s meddling in the relationship between Citigroup and one of its prime breadwinners, Andrew Hall. Hall, who runs a division of Citigroup called Phibro, which often earns a large chunk of revenue for the company, is admittedly a well compensated man (he owns a castle). He is now demanding a contractually committed bonus of $100 million. Citigroup, which received a lot of taxpayer cash through the bailout, is under immense pressure to renege.
The tensions in this are obvious. However, whether he is right or wrong, Hall, and his massive amounts of revenue, will leave Citigroup if his contract is not upheld. Citigroup is naturally in a tough position– stuck between the same populist anger that is pressuring the government and a large capital outlay that may reap future rewards. This tough decision is only complicated by the presence of government decision makers who, motivated by reasons not necessarily in line with Citigroup’s financial success, can severely influence what happens.
Proponents argue that government intervention is necessary to mitigate excessive risk taking on Wall Street. However, the excessive risk taking that this bill attempts to eradicate, is the very same excessive risk taking that Congress has helped build into the system. The financial bailout and other such programs encourage risky behavior. After all, if one knows one will not have to suffer the consequences, one will be more likely to take risks. When the suffered consequences do not match the risk level it encourages individuals to have a surplus of hazard. The bailout encourages just that.
Congress is in the process of establishing such a backwards system. If a system cushions the consequences of missteps, it simultaneously encourages missteps to be taken. Ultimately, people and institutions need to be able to feel the pinch in order to learn to avoid behavior in the future. The only alternative to eradicate risk is to have one party dictate every action– compensation, production, consumption. This is a failed political system often called communism.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Not a God - Part II: Obama’s Descent from Heaven
As recent polls, including Rasmussen Reports, suggest Obama’s support is on a steep downward trend. From the beginning of his campaign, Obama has built his own demise into his presidency. As is clearly being seen today, the Obama administration has greatly over promised and severely under delivered. Such a mismatch between pledges given and kept is expected and unsurprising given the near god-like image cultivated by his campaign. The world was promised and for many Obama was viewed as a savior. It is only natural, that given the realities of politics, such promises could not be kept.
Nevertheless, such a relative failure is turning out to be quite harmful for Obama. In at least some circles, the Obama facade is chipping, stripping his godliness and reverting him to a man–a failing man. America is beginning to see Obama for what he is; a politician with ideas, often ideas that do not resonate with the American people. Having fallen from such high regard, the loss of faith in the president is continuing to hamstring his policy objectives and weaken his presidency.
Obama has shown such miscalculation in a wide swatch of policy. While he has always been strongly criticized on foreign policy, Obama’s recent handling of the economy and healthcare and his insertion into the Gates-Crowley affair have proven disastrous.
Having missed the opportunity to fix the national healthcare on a self-imposed deadline, Obama is losing traction in overhauling the system. Successful attacks from the Right have hampered his attempts to hammer through a sweeping change. Furthermore, his own party is severely at odds with him and with each other. But most importantly, most Americans are happy with their current healthcare and see no need to implement the socialist programs that would destroy the private system. If ObamaCare follows the path of HillaryCare, it will destroy much of Obama’s remaining political capital.
Likewise, Obama made a huge mistake with the Gates-Crowley affair. Without reiterating the issue, Obama’s handling of the situation was a disastrous mistake. He inserted himself into a mediator role where no president should be. While his Beer Summit may have humorously corrected for some of his mistake, his snafu was at an inopportune time causing a loss of momentum on more important things on his agenda. It also showed that he is grossly out of touch with America, as some 62% of Americans believe race relations are improving.
As Obama’s presidency continues, he is showing and convincing more and more Americans that he is not the god that was he was portrayed as in his campaign. His human and policy failings are showing through his veneer at an ever increasing rate. This is good news for Republicans. As the saying goes, “The higher you climb, the farther you fall.” Unless he can pull some magic rabbit out of his hat, Obama’s decline will become precipitous. Obama seems to lack the political insights and understanding of policy to do this. The Republicans need to keep chipping away at him and firmly create the modern day Jimmy Carter.
Nevertheless, such a relative failure is turning out to be quite harmful for Obama. In at least some circles, the Obama facade is chipping, stripping his godliness and reverting him to a man–a failing man. America is beginning to see Obama for what he is; a politician with ideas, often ideas that do not resonate with the American people. Having fallen from such high regard, the loss of faith in the president is continuing to hamstring his policy objectives and weaken his presidency.
Obama has shown such miscalculation in a wide swatch of policy. While he has always been strongly criticized on foreign policy, Obama’s recent handling of the economy and healthcare and his insertion into the Gates-Crowley affair have proven disastrous.
Having missed the opportunity to fix the national healthcare on a self-imposed deadline, Obama is losing traction in overhauling the system. Successful attacks from the Right have hampered his attempts to hammer through a sweeping change. Furthermore, his own party is severely at odds with him and with each other. But most importantly, most Americans are happy with their current healthcare and see no need to implement the socialist programs that would destroy the private system. If ObamaCare follows the path of HillaryCare, it will destroy much of Obama’s remaining political capital.
Likewise, Obama made a huge mistake with the Gates-Crowley affair. Without reiterating the issue, Obama’s handling of the situation was a disastrous mistake. He inserted himself into a mediator role where no president should be. While his Beer Summit may have humorously corrected for some of his mistake, his snafu was at an inopportune time causing a loss of momentum on more important things on his agenda. It also showed that he is grossly out of touch with America, as some 62% of Americans believe race relations are improving.
As Obama’s presidency continues, he is showing and convincing more and more Americans that he is not the god that was he was portrayed as in his campaign. His human and policy failings are showing through his veneer at an ever increasing rate. This is good news for Republicans. As the saying goes, “The higher you climb, the farther you fall.” Unless he can pull some magic rabbit out of his hat, Obama’s decline will become precipitous. Obama seems to lack the political insights and understanding of policy to do this. The Republicans need to keep chipping away at him and firmly create the modern day Jimmy Carter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)