Where Are Obama’s ‘New Politics’?
It's still unclear whether the next president will make good on his biggest campaign promise: change.
On the crony and special interest front, it is a mixed bag. President-elect Obama was batting a thousand for a while in the personnel department, filling key roles with experienced and sober national security gurus and selecting an elite group of economic advisers. Then the wheels came off the meritocracy bus — in a single week. Bill Richardson, Leon Panetta (for CIA??), and Eric Holder don’t exemplify the sort of high standards for excellence and experience that Democrats longed for during the Bush years. The vetters either didn’t vet or grossly overestimated the Senate’s willingness to rubber-stamp anyone they set up for confirmation.
The degree to which special interests will control the Obama agenda remains to be seen. On one hand, we hear that card check legislation — the ultimate reward for the Democrats’ Big Labor sponsors — may be put on the back burner. That and a back-of-the-hand to demands for protectionist legislation might demonstrate that this administration really does intend to stand up to the special interests on their side of the aisle. And on education, there is hope that education secretary nominee Arne Duncan will be allowed to bring to Washington the spirit of innovation (and determination to take on the teachers’ unions on items like charter schools) which characterized his record in Chicago.
When looked at in its totality then, President-elect Obama shows some promise in bringing the New Politics from the campaign to the White House. But a huge danger looms ahead: his party is rife with corruption and favoritism as far as the eye can see. The scandals and investigations — Blago, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and Bill Richardson — are piling up. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is undoing the 1994 Congressional reforms to make Congress less transparent, give committee chairs lifetime tenure, and squash the opposition’s right to offer legislative amendments. And, of course, the Democratic-controlled Senate is now a national joke and dumping grounds for a raft of undeserving appointees. (Harry Reid only added to the embarrassing display with his contempt for the law when it came to barring Roland Burris, to be followed by his capitulation after fellow Democrat Diane Feinstein called foul.) All of this has rekindled talk of the “culture of corruption.”
And that is a problem for a Democratic president who is both leader of the party and the repository of those hopes for the New Politics. He will need to control and cajole his own troops, all the while making sure that none of it rubs off on his administration. If Blago-gate is any guide, it will be a tall order.
In short, President-elect Obama has certainly made good on his promise to set a new tone in Washington. However, on other fronts, his New Politics hasn’t yet taken hold. He would do well to not only make good on the rest of the New Politics agenda, but to make sure his party does not fall prey to the very old politics which undermined the Republicans. Unless he is serious about enforcing a new way of business in his own party, the promise of the New Politics will be lost — and with it a great deal of the goodwill and support he has garnered since the election.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Jennifer Rubin is PJM's Washington, DC, editor. She also blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
65 Comments
1. LeighB:I hope at some point Obama’s college and law school grades come out, I have not been able to see the brilliance that others have and am open to modifying my view with more data. His success has been primarily based on his ability to raise gi-normous sums of money, to ride the wave of media advocacy and to hide in plain sight.
I have great confidence in the Secretary of State and in some of the other appointees. While he will be tempted to swoop in and steal the limelight, I hope he does not. On the other hand, if this would keep him from overmanaging the domestic economy, swoop away BHO.
Jan 9, 2009 - 3:51 am 2. Steve Bourg:…..than that for Obama. Most of his talk about “Change” was just the tangential, “sound-good” stuff that would help him get elected. I believe his real focus and lifelong mission for “change” is simply to make Capitalism “more fair”. Which will screw us all. He doesn’t understand basic economics, both the incentives needed to take risks for businesses in our economy…….nor the nature of govt that becomes too large when it starts consuming 40% of GDP. Nor the importance of drilling for our own oil to keep cash here while we’re trying to get out of the recession. He doesn’t understand that his idea of “change”, which is really just redistributing income even more than already occurs………will give our economy zero chance of recovering, and will hasten us to a depression. That’s just my prediction. I hope at least the “Blue Dog” Democrats will thwart his socialist tendencies. Ah, the economic-illiteracy of our voters is depressing, isn’t it?
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:30 am 3. Cybergeezer:The “Change We Can Believe In” is coming in four years.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:30 am 4. Big Al:My first reaction to your question was that of course there will be huge change coming none of which conservatives will reverse and/or recover from in our life times. Then in
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:35 am 5. Mike T:second thought, his programs to be of give aways, welfare, busy work, and foremost health care for all, are nothing more than what his party has been doing to people for years and years, vote buying, but his will be on the grandest scale of all, so really no fundamental change. I also feel those states that voted for will be paid and those that did not will pay. We’ll see.
His handling of the CIA directorship issue is actually the first serious blow to his position as a leader. Panetta was not his first choice. He allowed journalistic hacks like Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan to cut that option off for him. By doing that, he set himself up for giving people the impression that he can be controlled with modest pressure applied to him.
Instead, what he should have done, is recognize that DC politics are a lot like prison. If you want people to leave you alone and respect you, you need to beat up the first person who comes at you tries to make you their b#$%^.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:46 am 6. Mike T:(Not that he should have gone to Sullivan or Greenwald’s homes and attacked them, but rather should have put the full force of his oratory skills and every asset available to him to counterattack them and other critics, to make it abundantly clear that he’s the man in charge on the Hill.)
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:47 am 7. SaraforAmerica:Really, why bother with all the analysis, Jennifer? Just admit that everything Obama said during the election was a political ploy to obtain the Presidency, and everything he says now is a ploy to obtain the biggest blank check ever handed up-front to an incoming President. And an experienced President to boot.
Yesterday he talked about spending billions to rescue the economy, and then about the importance of fiscal restraint –in the same breath. What he says is meant to mean nothing, and trying to extract true meaning from it is a joke on us all.
If he gets what he wants – billions of dollars in a fund for “stimulating the economy”, he’ll be able to do whatever his heart desires, enact every program on his agenda, within the first few months. He won’t even have to go and ask permission – the money will already be available.
That is much more scary than the doomsday scenario he’s currently promoting.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:59 am 8. SaraforAmerica:whoops meant to say INEXPERIENCED
Jan 9, 2009 - 7:00 am 9. misanthropicus:New Politics, alas! With Rahm Emmanuel still in hiding in Timbuktu and with a sorrowful crowd surrounding Howard Dean’s corpse, freshly rolled over by the Obama bus (now far away, no glances in the rear mirror) the One shows, time and again, that he is not ordinary politician, but someone who is equipped with an unusually large quantity of cynicism and opportunism. No cause or individuals who helped his career can feel secure around him, from gays to clintonistas – whether Caligula or Emperor Jones are Obama’s role models, I don’t know, but the larger picture coagulating around him is that of a brazen and egotistic narcissist who, propelled by a crisis has been brought to power.
New politics – I’m sure we’ll hear more about that.
Jan 9, 2009 - 7:06 am 10. Matthew O'Brian:Obama is full of shi*t.
Jan 9, 2009 - 7:20 am 11. tanstaafl:Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.
I choked (still coughing) on this line from Obama’s speech yesterday.
The federal government is, in fact, responsible for some of the worst in “vicious cycles crippling our economy”.
(see esp. Fannie and Freddie meltdowns and all related government policies and agendas)
Jan 9, 2009 - 8:34 am 12. tanstaafl:Part of Obama’s “economic recovery” plan is to send non-taxpayers a $500 check in the mail.
Michelle Obama mocked the 2007 $600 individual income tax rebate in the context of…”whazzat ? a pair of earrings ?”
If $600 being sent actual taxpayers is laughable in Michelle’s esteemed eyes, what’s $500 to non-taxpayers ?
Ridiculous ?
Jan 9, 2009 - 8:43 am 13. American Glob:So much backtracking on “change” before he even takes office. Wait 12 months. People won’t even recognize Obama anymore. He’ll go back on nearly everything he ever promised.
Jan 9, 2009 - 10:17 am 14. Sandy Salt:Obama is a politician and he said what he needed to to get elected. He now has to pay back his supporters just like every other politician. Are we so dumb to think that if you elect a politician that you will something different? I am glad that he has moved to the middle, but handing him a blank check is crazy. We need to cut spending, pay of the national debt and leave taxes alone until the market finishes its correction cycle. If you go to a personal financial advisor and tell them you are in huge debt and are spending way more than you take in, they would tell you to cut spending, pay off debt and start saving immediately.
What they would not tell you is to keep spending like there is no tomorrow and while you are at it run up some more credit cards. Where is the common sense? You don’t monkey with your revenue stream when you are this deep in the hole and you seriously cut spending until you are bringing in more than you are spending, then that extra money is used to payoff debt and to start saving. You might even think about a second income stream or selling off assets. Why does Washington think bankrupting the government will restore confidence in the economy?
I am not an economist with numerous degrees, but a guy that lives on what I make and supports my family the best that I can. You don’t have to listen to me, but rather put your faith in Washington because they have been doing such a great job so far.
Jan 9, 2009 - 10:23 am 15. Manny Goldman:First off, three cheers for Jennifer for her terrific guest performance on the Lee Rogers Show Friday morning, January 9th. Jennifer is a natural and should make a point of connecting with the major TV talk shows (e.g., Hannity).
As to the President-Elect, his real weak point may prove to be his lack of understanding of Geopolitics, i.e., how the world works. He needs a George Schulz-quality person around him, but, unfortunately, he doesn’t have one.
His future handling of Israel-related issues, e.g., Gaza and also Iranian nuclear developments, will give us all a better idea of whether or not he has the underlying stength and judgement to deal with the important international issues of the day.
Jan 9, 2009 - 10:25 am 16. Steve P.:You folks are reading way too far into this idea of “change”. You all seem to share in this conspiratorial frenzy that “change” is Obama’s codeword for a Marxist authoritarian takeover. In my mind, “change” may mean any or all of the following:
Jan 9, 2009 - 10:28 am 17. Sandy Salt:1. Refraing from treating the Constitution of the United States as just a suggestion.
2. Refraining from stacking federal agencies with unqualified cronies.
4. Responding to federal emergencies in a quick and efficient manner.
5. Refraining from treating the other half of the country that did not vote for your administration as the enemy.
6. Going to war only as a last resort and only to defend the safety and sovereignty of our nation.
7. If war is necessary, tell us the truth about why we’re going. Don’t lie. And don’t continually change your story about why we’re at war. It makes it that much clearer that you’re lying.
7. Refraining from immediately blaming previous administrations, opponents in congress, the media, Hollywood, lawyers, etc. for bad things that clearly happened on your administration’s watch and clearly resulted from your actions, or lack thereof.
Steve,
Jan 9, 2009 - 10:56 am 18. Robert Hurley:That would be nice, but as previously pointed out Obama is not even doing the above mentioned items already, so can you really expect that anything else on your list will change?
Out of one sie of your mouth you decry the awful change that Obama represent and out of the other side you ask what change. Please make you your minds which one you are going to carp about.
Jan 9, 2009 - 11:08 am 19. Sandy Salt:Robert,
Jan 9, 2009 - 11:34 am 20. huxley:It is for everyone to decide for themselves their definition of change and then measure Obama against it, since he failed to define it during the campaign like every other good politician. That is why lame catch phrases work to get people elected, but then result in so many P.O. people later because they don’t get what they made up in their head. The politician can then say that they never specifically promised that and get off scott free. This is nothing new and certaining isn’t change I can believe in, but who gives a #$%& I don’t matter now that the election is over.
I thought Rubin did an excellent, even-handed job of assessing the various aspects of “change” thus far offered by Obama.
It’s an interesting approach — elect a candidate so you can find out what he really means by “change.” Quite exciting, great suspense.
Jan 9, 2009 - 11:44 am 21. tanstaafl:Worth your time to read, including (linked in article) JM Keynes’ entire letter to FDR.
Arrogant Conceit: Obama Thinks He Can Reform The Economy
Jan 9, 2009 - 11:55 am 22. Pat:Obama, old politics, new wrapping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtE9olkWTSI
Jan 9, 2009 - 1:03 pm 23. mohammed:With what he has done so far, there is no doubt Barrack Hussein Obama has surely started bringing change. He has made appointments of people of high caliber for his cabinet. Mccain would have recycled Paul wolfowitz or Donald Rumsfield Or Condi Rice or that hispanic AG that did not know sh*t.
Jan 9, 2009 - 1:37 pm 24. Cybergeezer:You can see the faith the Dow Jones has in the Obamessiah. In a couple months, you can use your “Monopoly” money for legal tender.
Jan 9, 2009 - 2:03 pm 25. kevin c:WHAT “NEW” POLITICS? The poliitcs of Karl Marx, Vladamir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung Kim(mentally) ILl Sung, Whore Chi Minh, Fido Castro, Che(coward) Gueverrra, Yuri Andropov, Leonid Breznev, Nikita Khrushev, Huge Hole Chavez, Nasty Piglosi, Upchuck u Schumer is “new” politics? Last I remember, they had a rather nasty name for that form of politics. It is called COMMUNISM and it has MURDERED over 100 million humans in the 20th century and has FAILED everywhere its been tried. And the OBAMASCUM will learn the hard way, IT WILL NOT WORK IN AMERICA. AMERICA IS WHERE FREEDOM IS THE SOLUTION TO THE HUMAN CONDITION. Dont forget-George Washington won the AMERICAN REVOLUTION in spite of the FACT that only about 1/3 of the colonists supported him. At least 48% of voters disapprove of OBAMASCUM. Many more will likely soon be getting a serious case of buyers remorse. Just think of this folks- We will be finding out soon that OBAMASCUM is far deeper into this BLAGO crap that what the commie media wants us to know.
Jan 9, 2009 - 2:32 pm 26. ThinkingPerson:Don’t know a wit about Obama’s views on Israel/Gaza or any details about his economic policy but I sure have been inundated with pictures of his girls headed to school and his lovely vacations in Hawaii. Who is this clown really? Anyone? Anyone?
Jan 9, 2009 - 2:48 pm 27. The Historian:CIA MYSTERY: WHERE DOES OBAMA STAND?
Is the departure of Bush good for terrorists? Obama’s choice of Panetta raises questions.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-bush-departure-good-news-for.html
Jan 9, 2009 - 3:03 pm 28. Terry Gain:Pure partisan b.s. from Steve P(artisan)
1. Refraing (sic) from treating the Constitution of the United States as just a suggestion.
Do you have some concrete facts to support this garbage allegation.
2. Refraining from stacking federal agencies with unqualified cronies.
ditto
4. Responding to federal emergencies in a quick and efficient manner.
I think you mean natural disasters. And I think you mean: Assume Democrat Mayors and Governors are f*cking up.
5. Refraining from treating the other half of the country that did not vote for your administration as the enemy.
Sure, even as they call you mcchimphitlerbush when not calling you a liar and …see #1.
6. Going to war only as a last resort and only to defend the safety and sovereignty of our nation.
Saddam would today be developing nuclear weapons if Bush had not removed him. Iran will have nuclear weapons before wonder boy gets a clue.
7. If war is necessary, tell us the truth about why we’re going. Don’t lie. And don’t continually change your story about why we’re at war. It makes it that much clearer that you’re lying.
The story did not change. You obviously can’t keep 5 thoughts in your little head at the same time.
7. Refraining from immediately blaming previous administrations, opponents in congress, the media, Hollywood, lawyers, etc. for bad things that clearly happened on your administration’s watch and clearly resulted from your actions, or lack thereof.
In actual fact Bush has lashed out at his critics and enemies less than any President in history. It has in fact been his biggest failiing. And it’s why idiots like Steve P make this kind of omnibus attack.
Sure, Bush should take responsibiltiy for “bad things that clearly happened on his administration’s watch” like the rise of bin Laden under Clinton and the Carter-Clinton Fannie Mae ticking time bomb.
Next you’ll be blaming him for the rise of Islamofascism.
Bush has done a very credible job while under constant attack from the political and cultural opposition who consider him the real enenmy of America.
Jan 9, 2009 - 3:17 pm 29. Derek:Obama enjoys the benefit of being somewhat disconnected from the democratic party. It’s strange in that Obama is almost his own political party. He has his own activist and fundraising base that’s sort of separate from the democrats. Obama’s coalition is unique to Obama.
So i’m not entirely convinced that a democratic problem becomes an Obama problem. Hell, Obama is perfectly content to play the bad guy on the stimulus package and get the left whining about how it isn’t big enough… pretty much usurping Mitch Mcconnell’s position. There is huge danger for the right in thinking that other democrats are going to bring Obama down. The guy lived through Rezko, Wright, and Ayers, he’ll live through guilt by association with democratic politicians.
The real pitfall here is a potential for dems to lose seats rather then gain them in congress if scandal becomes too much associated with their brand. But even then, they won’t lose that many seats because of how polarized the electorate is.
Jan 9, 2009 - 3:20 pm 30. Blue Collar Todd:The “new politics” only means that Republicans are supposed to do everything Obama wants. To not go along is to be divisive, intolerant, dogmatic or a phobe of one kind or another. Unity means doing what Liberals want.
Jan 9, 2009 - 3:30 pm 31. tanstaafl:(Obama) has made appointments of people of high caliber for his cabinet. Mccain would have recycled…
Gee, Mohammed, Obama has been doing his fair share of recycling …The antiquated Paul Volcker (wasn’t he the guy whose report more or less let his buddy, Kofi Annan, off the hook ?) the guy who has served in the US Senate longer than Methuselah, Joe Biden, one eternally present (it seems, by now) half of The Clintons, Leon Panetta…
I guess when your field is rather narrow, the pickins’ are rather slim.
Jan 9, 2009 - 3:55 pm 32. mohammed:what?
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:28 pm 33. mohammed:they have actually moderated my comments out. dimwits you are.
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:29 pm 34. thegr8 1:Obama at his speech/news conference answered questions from a pre-determined list. He looked down at to his notes for names not at his audience. The questions were probably pre determined and answers rehearsed. Sounds like Pravda from the former Soviet Union. Fox might as well not cover his news conferences, maybe The Three Stooges Overbite, Matthews, and Madcow should be his entire audience.
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:52 pm 35. 888:As to his challenge to anybody for ideas to get us out of this mess, I’ll be happy to meet him anywhere, anytime. Forget the second $350 billion and Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus (really welfare, redistribution of wealth) and you can give every American a tax holiday from paying FICA and income tax for all of 2009.
Don’t even let me get into his foreign policy deficiencies. Biden took oath as Senator and is off in the Middle East doing what damage Hillary should be doing.
He is in way over his head 52% of the people don’t realize this, there is a governorship about to be open in Illinois, maybe he could handle that job. I wonder what Blago is asking for his replacement.
First, he needs to respect the U.S. Constitution (the law of the land), and submit, for all the world to see, the true copy of his birth certificate which will either prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen, or not.
Until he does that, he will not have the respect nor the support nor the trust of law-abiding and Constitution-respecting Americans.
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:54 pm 36. Thia:He has completely ignored women’s issues as well. All the women’s groups who endorsed him must feel pretty silly right now. Especially when you consider his reaction to “the groper” Favreau and the pathetic number of women in cabinet. Couldn’t he at least find a woman for head of the DNC?
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:56 pm 37. thegr8 1:Kevin – why was Obama interviewed for TWO HOURS by authorities and this was never reported? Where has Rahm Emanuel disappeared to?
Blago may go down but I hope he will squawk like a canary and do to the Democrapic party what Katrina did to New Orleans. Keep up the Jack Nicholson One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest persona Hot Rod, it is great theatre.
Jan 9, 2009 - 4:56 pm 38. Anna:Interesting article. I wish the author had made note of the ever-growing list of affronts to women thanks to this candidate of “change”. These would include:
1. Appointing 5 women to his Cabinet, down from 7 in Clinton’s admin and not much more than Bush. GIven that women make up 52% of the population, one would think that in the 21st century and with a President-elect who touts change, we would finally achieve gender parity in the Cabinet.
2. Making no public statement regarding the behaviors of his Director of Speechwriting, Jon Favreau, thereby sending the message that it is ok to demean the incoming Secretary of State before the eyes of the entire world.
3. Selecting a pastor to deliver the invocation who states that domestic violence is not grounds for divorce. For those who are not aware, it is estimated that two to four million women in America are physically assualted by their intimates each year and four women die every day because of it. (Per DOJ and FBI stats).
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:06 pm 39. Eamonn in Ireland:No surprise there Mohammed… you’re right.. just a shower of dimwits
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:09 pm 40. misanthropicus:Re #36/Thia: [...] He has completely ignored women’s issues as well. All the women’s groups who endorsed him must feel pretty silly right now. Especially when you consider his reaction to “the groper” Favreau and the pathetic number of women in cabinet. [...]
Thia, you Obama hater! Had Obama ignored women, Naomi Wolfe and Erica Jong and their ilk would all be yelling on the streets – but he has appointed in cabinet people with impeccable credential amongst feminists, like Larry Summers.
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:28 pm 41. thegre8_1:So please have some respect – learn from the Advocate crowd how to understand the One, ok?
888 World net daily reports the Supreme Court is having another conference on the issue of eligibility next Friday. Four ayes means the whole court will judge the issue. Also for 9.95 you can have Fedex send letters to all justices encouraging them to take up the eligibility issue. The networks have all been told this issue is off limits.
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:33 pm 42. Rachel Peepers:In my humble opinion, Barack Obama, though I worked to elect George Bush in ‘04 and supported John McCain in ‘08, is the right man for the job.
What I thought Barack was, I’m coming to the conclusion he is not.
An idealogue. And that’s good.
I think Obama’s priorities are in the right place. His own self interest is number one. The will of the people is number two. The good of the country is number three.
And that’s good enough for me. Let me explain. To me, an idealogue tries to ramrod his agena though regardless of the will of the people. An idealogue has the belief that he knows what’s best for the rest of us.
Bill Clinton was an idealogue in no sense of the word. John Adams the same. FDR the same.
Teddy Roosevelt I think was an idealogue, albeit a very well read, and courageous one. George McGovern was a great American, but an idealogue. I liken him to Jimmy Carter, both of whom posessed views that were incongruent with mainstream America.
George Bush turned out not to be one. His father definitely wasn’t (isn’t) an idealogue.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, from my point of view, were all idealogues. None were sensitive to the will of the people. All had holy war type mentality agendas, not to mention DNA replete with insanity.
Barack Obama will do just fine. The country will do just fine. The idiot extreme left has been thrown under the bus. The moveon.dums and Daily Pus people are thought of by Obama and his staff as non factors. Useful at times, but irrelevent when it comes to policy decisions.
The financial mess will end in late ‘09. Americans will start buying homes and raising families with renewed hope and vigor. The pent up car buying desires will result in a decade of unmatched sales increases. China will become westernized in ways never thought possible. Israel will realize that appeasement doesn’t work. And will scare the living daylights out of any mentally stable Iranian.
The Democratic Party and Barack Obama realize they were elected by mainstream America, and Obama and the Party don’t want to squander a chance to own the Presidency through 2016. That’s why they unceremoniously defrocked Howard Dean who’s been placed in the witless protection program.
There’s no doubt in my mind that I’m going to do everything I can to elect Sarah Palin in 2012, but in the meantime I’m convinced Barack Obama will do right by us.
SThe Democrats realize they were elected by mainstream America, and Obama and the Party doesn’t want to squander a chance to own the Presidency through 2016. That’s why
Separately, I do have one suggestion. I know everybody in the stock market has been burned. But there are some great buys out there. I won’t go into them other than advising any of you with cash you would like to invest to buy GS, Goldman Sachs. Under $80.00 a share it’s a fantastic buy. At $83.00 a share it’s a great buy. Whether you guy 50 shares or 500 shares, you won’t be disappointed. Personally, all my money is in cash except for GS. And other than owning the stock, I have no financial interest in it.
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:35 pm 43. thegre8_1:Anybody watch South Park last night or are familiar with it notice how Barney Frank sounds like Mr and Mrs Buttface?
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:36 pm 44. Rachel Peepers:Sorry for the typos. I was rearranging paragraphs and totally screwed up.
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:40 pm 45. Thia:Rachel
misanthropicus,
Sorry but I don’t care for Koolaid. Although you’re so angry at a simple criticism…It sounds like your Koolaid has turned to Lemonade?
Jan 9, 2009 - 5:52 pm 46. Thia:Why don’t you go suck on one?
A lemon of course.
misanthropicus:
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:03 pm 47. Anna:I re-read your post and realized you must be joking? Sarcasm? Nobody could be that far gone!
Poster #40 – Thanks for pointing out the Summers appointment. Left that off my list.
Poster #36 – Thanks for pointing out Obama’s missed opportunity to name a woman as the head of the DNC.
Geez, look how much longer the list has become in just a few short minutes!
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:10 pm 48. fsteele:As a Clintonista, I applaud many of the cabinet appointments of old Clinton 90s people (particularly Treasury); this is very reassuring.
As a Puma/feminist, I’m dismayed at the Favreau groping incident, Rev Warren, etc. It would not have cost BO anything to avoid these offenses to women (and to gays etc).
So my tentative theory is that somewhere behind the scenes, a new set of puppet masters is pulling some new strings on appointments — but giving the puppet BO (or his Favreau type handlers) their head on other things.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:12 pm 49. Insufficiently Sensitive:He never quite said what that meant, but we got the idea. Government would be less contentious, less opaque, and less dominated by political cronies and special interests. Washington D.C. would no longer be the place where “good ideas go to die.”
But those last two sentences are you talking, and not him. And everyone in the country could likewise write two glowing sentences ‘interpreting’ what he said, and they’d all be wildly different. All this goes to say, that he’s a superb bullsh*t artist, possibly better than Bernard Madoff – well, OF COURSE better, Madoff only made off with a paltry 50 billion, Obama’s aiming at 20 times that in his first year.
Had our ‘media’ actually dug into his past and reported on it, we’d have seen how his political operations did great for him and ACORN, and stuck others with the bill. Ask the Annenberg Foundation how he presided over the distribution of $150,000,000 to improve the learning of Chicago school children – with no improvement whatever when the results were measured. But plenty of that vast amount stuck to the ‘community organizations’ who undoubtedly supported his rise to elected office.
But our ‘media’ are no more likely to write that up than they are to write up the metastasization in 1995 of the Community Reinvestment Act – which legally mandated the conditions necessary for the whole subprime mortgage bubble/bust that is now the foundation for Obama’s next trillion in taxpayer spending.
Unless some form of reporting uncovers the backstage Saul Alinsky-style maneuvering that actually accomplishes Obama’s unstated (to us) goals, we are on a generations-long ride to unknown and hazardous regions.
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:22 pm 50. vici:I wouldn’t be too quick too judge Obama on the “New Politcs.” Just today on the MoveOn.org, http://moveon.org/, and George Soros are organizing their agenda and will be putting pressure on Obama. Don’t look for the new politics to last too long.
Obama already met with key Democrats today and made concessions in the stimulus bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090110/pl_nm/us_financial_bailout
Jan 9, 2009 - 6:22 pm 51. BMoon:I waver between two poles . My natural American optimism, hopefulness, and perhaps naivety gives me musings like Rachel’s (#42.) But my deeper, darker musings make my hairs stand when I even hear the phrase, “new politics.” Sounds too ominously similar to Orwell’s disturbing vision.
One thing for sure – it is far too early to even speculate. One more thing – Obama remains an enigma. He came from nowehere. he mesmerizes and stays mysterious. I almost would prefer some regular liberal Democrat statist hack than the surprises I fear Obama will spring on us.
Jan 9, 2009 - 7:41 pm 52. misanthropicus:RE #44/45 Thia:
Jan 9, 2009 - 8:37 pm 53. misanthropicus:Thia, fuses come in various lengths and with various burning times – best regards.
Re # 47/Anna:
Anne, we also we have Betty Currie – so far she answered the phone & did appointments for the One in the campaign office. I wouldn’t be surprised to see her in the WH as secretary – she definitely has what the liberals call “experience”.
Jan 9, 2009 - 8:42 pm 54. kat in your hat:Heck, what a vision, what a bunch! Hillary, Bill, Currie – and out of the woodwork emerges a naked handbag designer with a Davidoff cigar in her hand. My.
Obama is a fraud, and I am glad more people seem to be figuring it out!!
“New Politics”…nothing new about it except EXTRA lying, more scandals, misogyny, and media cover ups and BS.
He’s a FRAUD.
Jan 10, 2009 - 10:07 am 55. David:What will O’bama change?
>Stimulus packages that will actually generate spending INSIDE the U.S.
>An Intelligent approach to consensus building instead of bullying.
>Embracing technological investment to shore up inefficiencies
>An actual interest in governing
>Improved relations with our allies
>Negotiating with our enemies *Side note – You negotiate with people you disagree with.
>Removing ideological bias from Intelligence reports. * Side note – Your government has lied to you, roped you into a war justified with bad intelligence. But I guess by now we knew that.
>Deal with 40 million uninsured
Lots of things will change. It will not be a perfect world in 4 years. It will not be a perfect world in 8 years. But the state of affairs right now is awful and the strategies that have been employed to deal with issues are misguided. Change is needed and it is hear. God Bless America.
Jan 10, 2009 - 10:33 am 56. Anna:#53 What are you talking about? What’s up with “a naked handbag designer with a Davidoff cigar in her hand?” I can’t tell if you’re posts are serious, tongue-in-cheek, or if I’m just missing something…
Jan 10, 2009 - 2:44 pm 57. Anna:#55 David
No one knows what or how his stimulus package will work. There’s already dissent about it within his own party. It’s just words and numbers on paper and he hasn’t the resume heading into this most awesome job to give anyone confidence he knows what he’s doing on this front.
As for consensus building: Point to some examples, please. In my view, voting “present” an astonishing number of times as a state senator and then digging in as a U.S. Senator and voting straight party line is hardly the behavior of a consensus builder. There’s no evidence at all that’s he’s ever collaborated in a bi-partisan way on any legislation and he certainly hasn’t included Republicans in his Cabinet in any meaningful way. Evidence please.
Your third point sounds like the kind of thing Obama would say: It sounds impressive and meaningful on first blush, but when you actually dig into it, it’s not at all clear that it has any meaning.
Irrespective of anyone’s party affiliation, it seems reasonable to believe that most Presidents have been interested in governing. One may not approve of their style, but I don’t think this holds up as a bullet point with any real weight to it.
As for “improved relations with allies.” Based on what? He has no international experience, and, as far as Israel goes, it remains quite uncertain as to how “improved” relations will be given Obama’s mixed messages on this front.
Yes, his promise to sit down with leaders of enemy nations will surely be a change if he does that. But “change” does not in and of itself mean good or bad, just different. On this point, the change he may usher in may well be the end of all of us.
Even Obama has gone on record as saying he doesn’t know what he would have done if he had been in the Senate and presented with the Intelligence Report.
How he will even begin to try to fix this broken health care system is anyone’e guess in light of the fact that 1) we are in an economic collapse, and 2) the issue is a highly complex and divisive one that has proven to be difficult to tackle in the past. But, one can hope (a word I used to love until it became part of Obamam’s branding).
As for your summary comment, remember that change in and of itself connotes nothing more than something different, which most incoming administrations that represent a change in political party can promise, whether they announce it in bold letters on posters or not.
Jan 10, 2009 - 2:58 pm 58. Cybergeezer:Yea; Obama’s an enigma, alright; spelled enema.
Jan 10, 2009 - 3:54 pm 59. TruthHurts:The author asks: “Where are Obama’s New Politics”??? …..In my view, we can come to a conclusion on this question from Friday’s press conference…. Obama was asked by the press, why it was so difficult getting the stimulus done and why are there so many people criticizing it? Here’s how PEOTUS answered that question: “This is not some intellectual exercise…There’s no pride of ownership..If someone has a good idea that will help us grow jobs and turn this economy around, we’ll consider it. If there’s a better tax relief plan out there, we’ll do it. What we CAN’T afford to do is to posture..while the American families are suffering!”…….For those who question Obama’s politics and his “leadership”, let’s consider what’s happened since that quote. The Senate Dems who WERE complaining, piped down and started working it through amongst themselves. The House GOP, decided to call a “special conference” to hash out IDEAS for the stimulus. Now here’s the interesting part about these two groups. The Senate Dems did not believe that Obama would actually include business tax relief even though he’d said he wanted to do this- FOR MONTHS!. The House GOP did not think there was a necessity to do anything but be the “loyal opposition”, even though they knew the stimulus was going to happen, in some form, FOR MONTHS…See both groups were operating under the rules of the Bush and Clinton Whitehouse. Neither thought that this guy was serious when he says he’s interested in “what works” for Americans…It may benefit the GOP faithful to accept something that they’ve tried, too hard, to discount: There’s never been a politician to come onto the national scene quite like Obama..He’s not “like” anyone. If and when the GOP figures this out, they’ll start to put down the “fear and smear” playbook and start to develop REAL IDEAS to help solve 21st century issues…If you don’t believe the guy is something different, consider the notion of Rubin asking “Where are Obama’s ‘New Politics”, when he’s still 2 weeks from being sworn in! Conservatives can moan all they want but let’s not question the guy’s “leadership”. Barack Obama is the leader of the free world. Everyone knows it, accepts it and is anxious to get on with it. This constitutes a broad spectrum. From the leader of Hamas to Jennifer Rubin. From the Senate Dems to the House Republicans. There’s a new sheriff in town and he’s brought those “new politics” with him. If you take off the ideological blinders, you’ll see it.
Jan 10, 2009 - 8:33 pm 60. Cybergeezer:Obama a leader? Of What? When? Leader of the Free World? You shall see how much of an embarrassment that will turn out to be. Sure, since you voted for this candidate, you think he will make your vote worthwhile. You’ll be disappointed shortly.
Jan 11, 2009 - 10:08 am 61. Anna:Having worked in the U.S. Government for more than 20 years, I’ve seen a multitude of “candidates” appointed to upper level positions that could not fulfill the requirements of the position. Like Obama, they had an impressive resume. This is nothing but an “affirmative action” appointment. His decisions are the results of a “Committee” which has been purchased specifically for the purpose of fulfilling the Democrat play book.
Obama’s no more than a puppet with a good voice. If he were a leader, he could speak without a tele-prompter and make his own evaluations and decisions. If Obama makes any decision of his own in this term, “We The People” are in trouble. He hasn’t shown any expertise in anything to date, besides public speaking, which anyone with the desire, can master at your local community college.
Obama was voted in simply because he was viewed as the least harmful of the available candidates. And, naturally, he’ll have a lot of support, because no one wants to be embarrassed.
Somewhere in Vegas they’re betting he’s a one term (if he makes it that far) selection.
“Like Obama, they had an impressive resume.”
Correction: There was nothing impressive about Obama’s resume. He is the result of a brilliant branding campaign and little else.
Jan 11, 2009 - 4:24 pm 62. Derek:This is the new politics of Obama and what I meant when I said earlier that he was separate from the democratic party:
http://nymag.com/news/features/all-new/53380/index1.html
““They have basically invented their own party that is compatible with the Democratic Party but is bigger than the Democratic Party,” the Republican media savant Stuart Stevens, who helped to elect George W. Bush twice, argues. “Their e-mail list is more powerful than the DNC or RNC. In essence, Obama [was] elected as an independent with Democratic backing—like Bernie Sanders on steroids.””
Trying to paint Obama with the same old brush is just not going to work. It completely underestimates his base, and not only that it ignores who his base actually is.
Jan 11, 2009 - 11:43 pm 63. Cybergeezer:You may have a point about a different party; What are they going to call it? The MLK Party? Black Panther Party? Obamessiah Party? Afro-American Party? Affirmative Action Party? That last one sounds powerful.
Jan 12, 2009 - 10:19 am 64. roberto:We need some change ,but this country needs to go backward and be like it used to be.I told several people i would like to vote for a president who would promise to make no new laws,but would have many laws repealed. all of them said they would vote for him.
Jan 12, 2009 - 1:26 pm 65. misanthropicus:RE #56/Anna: [...] What’s up with “a naked handbag designer with a Davidoff cigar in her hand?” I can’t tell if you’re posts are serious, tongue-in-cheek, or if I’m just missing something… [...]
Anna, just a defining vision of Clinton’s years…
Jan 12, 2009 - 2:46 pm