Hillary and Her Cough

Updated:  Well, she faints, coughs, spazzes out, can't recall, gets tired, falls and hits her head ... I have a vague memory of Democrats attacking Reagan because he was too old and couldn't remember ....  She can't for sure.  The video of her being pushed into the van, watch her feet.  She isn't even acting under her own volition, they lifted and shoved her into the van.  It's all ok though right.  Her incessant cough that has plagued her almost every single time she opens her mouth, her famous video of a spaz attack, which those defending her said was her reaction to being caught unaware ... ha.  Lie.

Look at the video from 9/11 ... the same spaz attack just prior to being dumped into the van.  

We deserve A LOT more information, by doctors she doesn't know or control.  She needs to be evaluated.  She can't remember things.  She faints, she falls, she trips, she stumbles ... and she does all that in the same week.  THAT is A LOT.  

How does it feel to work for someone who is medically impaired and should not by reason of medical issues be a serious contender ... that she may not last 4 years yet you all foisted her ... do you ever wonder about that? 

Can we just stop talking about Hillary Clinton’s health now?

 Can't we, please!  I would ask that if I was Chris or anyone at WP or for that matter ... pretty much any news outlet.

I remember, and I went back and looked, more than 47 stories about McCain and his age, more than 93 stories about the cancerous spot on his nose, 13 stories about his age ... 

I have listened to, watched, or read articles or stories about - Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama ... Biden, Gore, Cheney ... and never have I witnessed anyone cough or hack away as much as Hillary.

Now the author of the WP article above goes on to say - "if suffering an occasional coughing fit" ... OCCASIONAL?  I remember watching dozens of Bill's speeches or lectures, however we define them ... he never went into a coughing fit and only a couple times went for water.  Bush never had a coughing fit.  Biden never has.  Obama never has.  So, whats with the OCCASIONAL ... apparently its not all that occasional.  The WP author continues - " ... is evidence of a major health problem, then 75% of the country must have that mystery illness."

 Ha ha.  Use faulty logic to divert the attention  and dismiss the issue.  After all, who hasn't once or twice had a coughing fit.  Few people would ever say they haven't, yet Hillary isn't asking to be the head chef at Nabu.  She isn't asking to be selected as America's Best Talent ... she wants a job that ... well, that we have a right to delve deeply into any of her issues we feel important, and NO, she isn't have an occasional ... it is nearly everytime she breaks down hacking.  And hacking is different than a simple cough.  

 

She hacks and wheezes and coughs, and sputters away.  We have a right to know.  And Tim Caine - we have a need to know everything in his life and closet, because Hillary is seemingly one of the least fit people running for office, and Caine is a heartbeat away.

 

Oh but her doctor gave her an all clear - really, remember with the Clintons - the meaning of is!

We need to ask her doctor very narrowly focused questions.  Very specific.  Not broad and general.  Broad and general allow FAR TOO MUCH wiggle room and for the Clinton's - that wiggle room is the world they inhabit!

Goose and Gander

I could accept the tit for tat argument, but to make it about the Republicans thwarting a president is ... at best, simplistic.



Dem to Lee: 'You got what you deserved' on Cordray

byJoel Gehrke

Washington Examiner

 

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., gave "a rebuke" to a Republican senator testifying in a House hearing today about President Obama's controversial recess appointments, which were made when the Senate was not actually in recess. Connolly, who represents the inner suburbs of Northern Virginia, said that Senate Republicans brought the unprecedented maneuver on themselves by obstructing President Obama's agenda.

"You got what you deserved," Connolly told Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. "I guess, with all due respect, consider this a rebuke." Connolly criticized Senate Republicans for attempting to block the installment of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama made two other recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, who been announced so recently that no paperwork had been submitted to the Senate and no confirmation hearings held.

"I believe that a statement by 44 Republican senators in the United States Senate announcing that they are going to try to thwart the implementation of a duly-passed law," Connolly said, is "a second extra-constitutional bite at the apple to thwart its implementation when you didn't have the votes to defeat it."

Lee explained in the hearing that the Republicans refused to allow a vote on Cordray because the law creating the CFPB was designed into protect it from congressional oversight. The law actually prevents future Congresses from defunding the bureau. "It enjoys an unusual degree of insulation from the normal controls on any government and that degree of insulation has historically been reserved for despots," Lee told House Oversight and Government Reform Chair Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Connolly did acknowledge that he believes presidents have long "abused" the power to make recess appointments, but he argued that it "has nothing to do with this president per se; it is a long-standing institutional and constitutional issue."









dems

Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.

Obama: The mostpolarizing president. Ever.

By Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake

January 30, 2012
Washington Post

President Obama ran — and won — in 2008 on the idea of uniting the country. But each of his first three years in office has marked historic highs in political polarization, with Democrats largely approving of him and Republicans deeply disapproving.

For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.)

In 2010, the partisan gap between how Obama was viewed by Democrats versus Republicans stood at 68 percent; in 2009, it was 65 percent. Both were the highest marks ever for a president’s second and first years in office, respectively.

What do those numbers tell us? Put simply: that the country is hardening along more and more strict partisan lines.

While it’s easy to look at the numbers cited above and conclude that Obama has failed at his mission of bringing the country together, a deeper dig into the numbers in the Gallup poll suggests that the idea of erasing the partisan gap is simply impossible, as political polarization is rising rapidly.

Out of the ten most partisan years in terms of presidential job approval in Gallup data, seven — yes, seven — have come since 2004. Bush had a run between 2004 and 2007 in which the partisan disparity of his job approval was at 70 points or higher.

“Obama’s ratings have been consistently among the most polarized for a president in the last 60 years,” concludes Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones in a memo summing up the results. “That may not be a reflection on Obama himself as much as on the current political environment in the United States, because Obama’s immediate predecessor, Bush, had similarly polarized ratings, particularly in the latter stages of his presidency after the rally in support from the 9/11 terror attacks faded.”

Our guess is that Jones’ latter hypothesis is the right one — that we are simply living in an era in which Democrats dislike a Republican president (and Republicans dislike a Democratic one) even before the commander in chief has taken a single official action.

The realization of that hyper-partisan reality has been slow in coming for Obama. But in recent months, he seems to have turned a rhetorical corner — taking the fight to Republicans (and Republicans in Congress, particularly) and all but daring them to call his bluff.

Democrats will point out that Republicans in Congress have played a significant part in the polarization; the congressional GOP has stood resolutely against almost all of Obama’s top priorities. And Obama’s still-high popularity among the Democratic base also exacerbates the gap.

For believers in bipartisanship, the next nine months are going to be tough sledding, as the already-gaping partisan divide between the two parties will only grow as the 2012 election draws nearer. And, if the last decade of Gallup numbers are any indication, there’s little turnaround in sight.

obama

The Most Powerful Man?

The greatest danger during a duel, is not the type of gun, nor the number of shots, nor even how fast - but whether one party feels the other party is weaker or slower or will blink or hesitate.  Danger comes from hesitation, and when others regard you as hesitant and not committed, the world is a much more dangerous place.

The most powerful man on Earth?

By Dana Milbank, Monday, August 8, 2:40 PM
Washington Post

 

A familiar air of indecision preceded President Obama’s pep talk to the nation.

The first draft of his schedule for Monday contained no plans to comment on the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating by Standard & Poor’s. Then the White House announced that he would speak at 1 p.m. A second update changed that to 1:30. At 1:52, Obama walked into the State Dining Room to read his statement. Judging from the market reaction, he should have stuck with his original instinct.

“No matter what some agency may say, we’ve always been and always will be a AAA country,” Obama said, as if comforting a child who had been teased by the class bully.

When he began his speech (and as cable news channels displayed for viewers), the Dow Jones industrials stood at 11,035. As he talked, the average fell below 11,000 for the first time in nine months, en route to a 635-point drop for the day, the worst since the 2008 crash.

It’s not exactly fair to blame Obama for the rout: Almost certainly, the markets ignored him. And that’s the problem: The most powerful man in the world seems strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency.

The economy crawls, the credit rating falls, the markets plunge, and a helicopter packed with U.S. special forces goes down in Afghanistan. Two thirds of Americans say the country is on the wrong track (and that was before the market swooned), Obama’s approval rating is 43 percent, and activists on his own side are calling him weak.

Yet Obama plods along, raising gobs of cash for his reelection bid — he was scheduled to speak at two DNC fundraisers Monday night — and varying little the words he reads from the teleprompter. He seemed detached even from those words Monday as he pivoted his head from side to side, proclaiming that “our problems is not confidence in our credit” and turning his bipartisan fiscal commission into a “biparticle.”

He reminded all that the situation isn’t his fault (the need for deficit reduction “was true the day I took office”), he blamed the other side (“we knew . . . a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip could do enormous damage to our economy”) and he revisited the same proposals he had previously offered to little effect: extending unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut, and spending more on infrastructure projects.

This, he said, is “something we can do as soon as Congress gets back,” along with further deficit reduction. “I intend to present my own recommendations over the coming weeks,” he said.

Over the coming weeks? As soon as Congress gets back?

In the White House briefing room after Obama’s statement, the press corps grilled Jay Carney about the lack of fire in the belly.

“The president said our problems are imminently solvable, and he talked about a renewed sense of urgency,” CBS’s Norah O’Donnell pointed out. “Why not call Congress back to work?”

Carney chuckled at this suggestion.

“I mean, the Dow dropped below 11,000 — where’s the sense of urgency?” O’Donnell persisted.

The press secretary uttered something about the founders and the separation of powers.

NBC’s Chuck Todd was not swayed. “Why not bring Congress back now?” he repeated, pointing out that “the American public seems to be in a little bit of a panic” while Washington says, “We’re going to stand back and wait until school starts.”

“I think we’re getting a drumbeat here,” Carney said. “The press corps is leading here — always appreciated.”

At least somebody is.

Various reporters tried to elicit more information about Obama’s economic plans and deficit-reduction proposals, but Carney declined again to take the lead.

“I don’t want to get too far ahead of the process,” he explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler, adding that Obama “will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it.”

“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?”

That is the enduring mystery of Obama’s presidency. He delivered his statement on the economy beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, but that was as close as he came to forceful leadership. He looked grim and swallowed hard and frequently as he mixed fatalism (“markets will rise and fall”) with vague, patriotic exhortations (“this is the United States of America”).

“There will always be economic factors that we can’t control,” Obama said. Maybe. But it would be nice if the president gave it a try.

















 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Obama and the Presidency

Sometimes important ideas are conveyed or expressed without so much as any attention.  While only an opinion, they are expressed, heard, assimilated into discussion and debate, and suddenly become more than just a word or idea - they become.

So to with the following - all very interesting about Obama and his attitide, but something else even more ... ominous about the article.




Does Barack Obama want to be re-elected in 2012?




Few Americans consider themselves bigger than the presidency but Obama might be one of them. The man in the Oval Office, argues Toby Harnden, may already be preparing for a role as a post-president in a post-American world.



By Toby Harnden
21 Aug 2010
The Telegraph



Barack Obama may already be preparing for a role as a post-president in a post-American world. Photo: AP When David Plouffe, President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager, wrote recently that his former boss was "not concerned with his re-election", there was predictable scepticism.

After all, it has long been a truism that every politician wants to cling to power and a reality that presidential campaigns are planned years in advance. Pronouncements about not looking at polls and concentrating on getting things done are, moreover, standard fare from poll-driven, election-obsessed politicians and their apparatchiks.

In this case, however, Plouffe may inadvertently be onto something. Almost everything Obama does these days suggests that he doesn't care much about being re-elected. Strange as it might seem, perhaps he wants to be a one-term president.

Obama was elected in 2008 at an extraordinary moment in American politics. Suddenly, this charismatic figure, elected to the Senate without serious opposition in 2004 and without any executive experience, was catapulted into the White House.

His presidential bid had been based on the power of his life story and his ability with the spoken word. Doubtless he was as surprised as anyone else that he pulled it off. Governing has been altogether more difficult for him and there are signs he is already tiring of it.

Obama's intervention on the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" issue is a case in point. There was no need for him to get involved - the Islamic community centre two blocks from the 9/11 site is unlikely to get built and there was no political advantage in his making a statement.

What he said about religious freedom was typically Obama - high-minded, principled and legalistic. He is, after all, a former constitutional law professor. What his words lacked were any real empathy with what Americans felt and practical considerations about resolving the issue - never mind the political downside for him.

Doubtless he has been advised to prove he is "connected" to ordinary Americans by doing things like be seen attending church and taking "regular" holidays. But Obama seems happy to act as a European-style secularist, vacation in Martha's Vineyard and send his daughters to one of America's most exclusive private schools.

Obama does not suffer for self doubt. He has long seemed so convinced of his own virtue that to question his motives is illogical. Increasingly, his pronouncements carry the tone of one who believes those who disagree are stupid or bigoted.

Before departing for Martha's Vineyard last week, Obama spent three days on the campaign trail raising money and support for Democratic mid-term election candidates. Don't give in to fear," he said in Milwaukee. "Let's reach for hope."

It was a message that worked once but is unlikely to appeal this time, with America in the grip of a recession, unemployment still stubbornly close to 10 percent and blame-it-on-Bush rhetoric wearing very thin.

Obama is, however, at his best in these settings. He has the crowd hanging on his every word and he is not dealing with grubby political realities or objectionable opponents. Perhaps they are a reminder for him of simpler times.

They might also be a glimpse of the future. For Obama, the crowning moment of his presidency have been speeches abroad - the statement in Strasbourg that America had been "dismissive and arrogant", the address to the Muslim world from Cairo, the acceptance in Oslo of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In Berlin in 2008, Obama cast himself as a "citizen of the world". He has dismissed the bedrock notion of American exceptionalism by describing it, also in Strasbourg, as little more than narrow patriotism. Elite opinion among liberal Ivy League types - of which Obama is the embodiment - holds that we are already living in a post-American world.

There are few Americans who see themselves as bigger than the presidency but Obama could well be one of them. In 2008, Obama showed little appetite for the down-and-dirty aspects of political campaigning.

When things got tough against Hillary Clinton, he all but conceded the final Democratic primaries and let the clock run out. Against John McCain, he developed a campaign plan and refused to deviate from it. McCain was level in the polls when the US economy imploded, handing Obama a relatively comfortable victory.

Obama is the first black American president, an established author, multi-millionaire and acclaimed figure beyond American shores.

It seems highly unlikely that Obama will decide not to run in 2012. But he might well be calculating that a embarking post-presidential role as the leading global thinker in the post-American world as a Republican successor enters office is more attractive than being sullied by the political compromises and manoeuvrings necessary to win.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

A Second American Revolution?

IBD Editorials











Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?




By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS
07/30/2010
Investors.com


The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever.

The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain."

A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ."

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.

He and the EPA may try to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.

And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide "boot on the neck" policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.

By the trick of letting current-law tax rates "expire," he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America's borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama to the hilt

Disinterested = Great Candidate

Volunteers


They are everywhere - church, school, work, and unfortunately even in government.  In church, they are the person who volunteers for everything, and when they arrive the first day, they take dominate - whether by their actions or their presence.  They also show up at your child's class to volunteer or simply be helpful - offering their expertise, they taught decades ago, yet know everything you need to know, and despite the fact they dealt with pre-schoolers, are fully aware how to handle tenth graders.  When they finish at school and church, they are always around at work - volunteering for very nearly everything, and ensuring their opinions / thoughts are known to everyone.

Do we really want those professional volunteers?  Do we want people who live to be - whatever the being' may be.  Do you want a person who lives to be the volunteer - that their life is defined by the act of being.  They have no other measure for who and what they are, but for volunteering or working or ... They feel compelled to 'show off', or perhaps we could say, they have an overwhelming desire to share what they know with everyone else, whether or not they should, and regardless of the effect upon those around them.

It may be argued that who better to offer their thoughts or volunteer than someone who has done it.  True enough, but, remember why you disliked 'those' people when they were volunteering.  Now you seem to believe their obsession with the pursuit of a job is noteworthy.  It shows a 'can do' attitude (apologies to the Seabees) ... but unlike the Navy's SeaBees, these people are productive, at a cost.

When George Washington retired, he melted into the scenery, with little commentary afterward.  He wrote private letters and spoke to friends, but he did not meddle in the affairs of the Adams administration.  He did accept a position to assist in raising an army, without comment on whether war was necessary or not - an army was important.

Often these men call upon their predecessors for help, for no one has an understanding of the difficulty governing than someone who has, but we also see a pattern in this involvement.  More often, it is private and never revealed (or perhaps not for years or decades, or perhaps when an ex-president has passed away).  Johnson retires to his ranch in Texas and Nixon sits in the Oval Office - did Johnson ever speak out on Vietnam or his limited contacts with the Nixon administration?  No.  How about Nixon and Ford.  Did Ford admit to Nixon having offered thoughts on Cambodia or China?  No.  Did Carter call upon anyone?  Many times he had Kissinger offer his thoughts, but all private.  Carter also had Arman Hammer involve himself on Soviet issues - privately. 

The greatest compliment one could be called in the 18th century might be 'disinterested'.   Colonists, and thereafter Americans were suspicious of politicians and lawyers.  What we valued were men who, when called upon, came forward, served, and melted into the scenery when done.  It takes a very special human being to manage that feat, for the presidency creates ego.  Sitting in the most powerful seat on earth takes what ego you have and inflates it 1000%.  You believe you are the font of all knowledge and brilliance and cannot simply disappear for your ego is unfed and after years of having your every whim catered to, you feel compelled to thrust yourself upon the nation - as often as you possibly can.  Ego.

You may also find an ex-president thrusting himself upon the nation for another reason - he feels unfulfilled, he loses his identity when he leaves office.  His life is never complete again and he searches for meaning - in always being front and center of every event at any time. or offering his opinion even when not asked.

We all remember why we don't like those volunteers.

Disinterest - someone who does not live to be, but does to serve, holding their ego in check, more often than not through prayer, for humanism does not contain the ego, it lets it bloom - religion and faith tend to hold the ego in place if rendered faithfully.

This is the leader we want, whether they are eloquent or not, whether they be a Democrat or Republican.  I would take a Democrat who was 'disinterested' over a Republican with an obsession or need, to be the president.  I would trust the Democrat more.  His brightness and eloquence is less relevant than you might believe.  His disinterest, far more relevant.

We should look for the guy who had a life, who was comfortable with his life before, who values his privacy and is as comfortable in whatever his roles, does not take himself or anyone else too seriously, has good insight into people, and a general knowledge of events and places, but equally as important - he possesses a sense of humor.  That is the ideal.






Bush tells aides he seeks 'anonymity'


Feb 26 04:37 PM US/Eastern


Former US president George W. Bush told a group of his White House aides at a breakfast Friday that he is "trying to regain a sense of anonymity," an event attendee confirmed to AFP.

Bush also told the group that he was pleased former vice president Dick Cheney had taken a lead role in defending their national security policies, declaring: "I'm glad Cheney is out there."

The former president, who also touted his administration's domestic agenda, said he was resolved to keep a low profile and indicated he did not want to be a thorn in the side of President Barack Obama.

"I have no desire to see myself on television. I don't want to be on a panel of formers instructing the currents on what to do. I'm trying to regain a sense of anonymity," Bush said.

"I didn't like it when a certain former president -- and it wasn't 41 or 42 -- made my life miserable," he said in a reference to Jimmy Carter, who infuriated the Bush White House in 2007 when he accused the administration of allowing the use of torture on terror suspects.

The online political publication Politico first reported the remarks at the breakfast, which was closed to the media.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Bush

Don't Let Me Down, Mr. Brown.

Here is what he should do - QUICKLY, like a bunny, set up a presidential investigation team, to test the water in 2012, carry on his Senate duties, attend few meetings, do little of anything, travel a bit on taxpayers money, visit 2-3 countries and commiserate with the people, return home, deny you are running for president, and then ... run.  He would have more experience than Obamessiah when he ran.

Or he can stay in the Senate, finish this term of 2 years, run again, get re-elected, serve six years, serve in the Senate and do his service where he is best qualified, unlike some others.









Obama

Up to you is down to me - I like Foucault

Political scientists report drop in US standing

By BARRY SCHWEID (AP)
October 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — The United States' standing in the world declined in the past decade to below Cold War levels, according to a leading group of political scientists.

Favorable attitudes have risen sharply under President Barack Obama with his commitment to "restore American standing," but confidence in him appears to be in conflict with unfavorable attitudes about U.S. foreign policy, the American Political Science Association said in a report released Thursday.

"Many American leaders and citizens worry that this decline, despite a recent upturn, may be part of a long-term trend, one that will be hard to reverse," the report said.

While Obama has raised American esteem, he has not produced more European troops for Afghanistan, secured concessions from North Korea nor made any headway with Iran, the academics said.

Twenty political scientists worked on the report for more than a year. Two of them dissented from the conclusions, saying that "political bias affects perceptions" and that "the academic community, unbalanced as it is between self-identified Republicans and Democrats, is not immune to such bias."

The dissenters, Stephen D. Krasner of Stanford University and Henry R. Nau of The George Washington University, said U.S. standing is heavily influenced by political bias in the United States and political attitudes in foreign countries. Krasner was director of policy planning at the State Department under President George W. Bush.

The findings are based on analyses of public opinion surveys, votes in the U.N. General Assembly and the expert judgment of specialists in the field of comparative geopolitics, said Peter J. Katzenstein of Cornell University, a former president of the association.

American standing plunged most sharply in the Middle East and Europe, although authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are more supportive of U.S. policy than they can say publicly, the report said.

In Europe, there is a growing European identity and "a conscious political attempt to delink Europe from American policies," according to the report.

At the United Nations, support for U.S. positions has declined since the 1960s, and the decline was especially pronounced during the George W. Bush administration, the academics said. After some initial success, such as toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States grew mired in Iraq and Osama bin Laden remained at large. The success of the troop surge in Iraq may have helped improve attitudes toward the United States, the report said.

Helping raise U.S. esteem now are Obama's rhetorical skills and "what his election signifies about the openness of America," the report said.

"In policy terms, however, most (foreigners) believe that there has been little change in the U.S. disregard for the interests of their country, and that U.S. influence in the world is still mostly bad," the report said.

The American Political Science Association has more than 15,000 members.

*********************************

Somehow we (the public) are asked to believe that academics are immune from bias ... that somehow they factor in their bias and conjur up objectivity when answering questions.

Silly silly silly.

In such a simple world these might be appropriate. I understand why someone would use these polls or research - to promote their agenda or perspective on any given topic. It would not be accurate, but understandable.

















liberalism

The King of Pop - Barack Obama

The pop president

June 20, 2009
The Sydney Morning Herald


Barack Obama should remember that it is good to be loved, but more important to be feared.

Barack Obama's Cairo speech on Islam and the West was yet another rendezvous in Obama's romance with the wider world. George Bush dodged shoes on his last Middle East visit. Obama was catching bouquets. "Obama, Obama," the overwhelmingly Arab audience chanted as he left Cairo University's Great Hall stage.

Why such remarkable international prestige? Some of the answer has to do with America. Most people know instinctively that reports of America's death are greatly exaggerated, that Washington will be central to the resolution of all great international issues for some time to come. There is relief, therefore, that the alternatively intransigent and hapless Bush was replaced by someone of Obama's talent and agility - a victory that chimes with America's most liked attributes, its openness and receptiveness to talent.

And an African-American president is attractive to anybody moved by the injustice of slavery, particularly those at the margins.

Obama's multinational make-up appeals too. All quarters of the world claim kinship with Obama: Europeans discern a similar mindset; Muslims look to his middle name; Africans recall his lineage; Asians think of his upbringing.


Every foreign trip, therefore, has the feeling of a homecoming or at least a major cultural event. Next month, he's scheduled to visit Ghana, where he will visit the hub of the British slave trade, the Cape Coast Castle. In November he is expected to visit his childhood home in Jakarta.

Images from the slave dungeons of Africa and the streets of Indonesia may be as powerful as Obama's inauguration on the brilliant white steps of the US Capitol.

People can tire of all this, perhaps sooner than we think, but Obama is backing up his international charm offensive with an impressive display of diplomacy. He inherited from Bush diabolical international challenges including bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, a shrinking economy and a heating planet. But his policy responses have been adroit. Obama has not faced his most challenging tests, but he is off to a sure-footed start.

Ambition is the first of four themes that characterise Obama's foreign policy. The US President does not lack self-confidence. On his first day in the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs reported that he "looked very comfortable in his surroundings" notwithstanding that a mere four years earlier, his surroundings were the Illinois Senate.

Obama's confidence extends from the personal to the political. He has promised to change the way America is perceived, work towards a nuclear-free world, bring peace to the Holy Land and effect a comprehensive settlement between Israelis and Arabs, and avert a climate catastrophe at the same time that he retools the financial system and kick-starts an economic recovery.

The second theme is pragmatism. On Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, Obama has been prepared to shade his campaign promises in order to conform with the advice of his military commanders.

Obama is attracted to things that work. His decision to make Hillary Clinton secretary of state strengthened his administration but also stunted the careers of many loyal foreign policy wonks who had spurned Clinton in the primaries and signed up with the Obama campaign instead.

Obama's pre-presidential writings and speeches on foreign policy were mainly free of ideological content, and some of his statements as president reveal a professorial pragmatism. In Europe, Obama was asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism. "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Does Obama not realise that America is unique, a shining city on a hill which cannot possibly be compared with other countries?

The third theme is liberalism. Obama had a very liberal voting record in Illinois and in the US Senate. Unlike other Democratic candidates for president, he did not stew for decades in the Washington foreign policy soup. He did not believe he had to look tougher than the Republicans in order to beat them.

Obama's liberalism is evident in plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, the ban on torture, his comments on nuclear weapons, and the ending of Washington's macabre dance of climate change denial, scepticism and delay.

The final theme is that of engagement. In Clinton, he appointed one of the world's most famous people as his chief diplomat, and installed big beasts such as Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell as special envoys. He recorded a video message to the Iranian people commemorating the Persian new year, pressed "reset" on relations with Russia, and made nice with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. Obama is no pacifist, as Somali pirates have learned, but diplomacy is on the rise.

All this makes for an impressive combination. Most of it is good news for Australia, although we will have to be smarter and work harder to get access to Washington's inner councils. Obama doesn't know Australia well, and he's not really an alliance man anyway, and competition for the president's attention is fiercer. Like Obama, Kevin Rudd is a pragmatic policy wonk from the centre-left.

Bush's approach of punishing adversaries by not speaking to them did not work. It makes sense to reach out to competitors and to try to identify mutual interests. But not all interests are mutual or even reconcilable.

International relations is an unsentimental business; you must deploy leverage and pressure as well as sweet reason.

On international as well as domestic issues such as farm subsidies and the assault weapons ban, however, Obama has been surprisingly quick to compromise. A rare exception has been Washington's public dispute with Israel over settlements, with Obama squeezing Benjamin Netanyahu between attachment to settlers and the Israeli public's attachment to good relations the US.


To be a great foreign policy president, Obama must demonstrate there are significant costs in opposing him on important issues. It is good to be loved, said Machiavelli, but more important to be feared. As Obama deals with Tehran and Pyongyang and tries to force his way through the thicket of national interests on climate change, he may wish to download some Machiavelli onto his BlackBerry along with Miles Davis and Jay-Z.


Michael Fullilove is director of the global issues program at the Lowy Institute and a non-resident senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

***********************************************

I agree with Mr. Fullilove almost entirely, but he has a number points I do not believe accurately reflect Mr. Obama, or his view of the world.

Mr. Fullilove asks whether or not Obama realizes that America is unique, a shining city on a hill which cannot possibly be compared with other countries? The answer - No, he honestly does not.

In order then -

People can tire of all this, perhaps sooner than we think, but Obama is
backing up his international charm offensive with an impressive display of
diplomacy. He inherited from Bush diabolical international challenges including
bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, a
shrinking economy and a heating planet. But his policy responses have been
adroit.

His 'diplomacy' is not exactly active. George Mitchel, for all the brilliance he is showered with managed to accomplish what? A peace plan in Ireland? Keep in mind other parties were involved and had to be desirous of peace for any process to work. Mitchell was sent to fix something already on the mend. In addition, within days of the signing of the paperwork, distrust and hostility broke out. Violence ensued and flared up for weeks afterwards. It was only ten years later that the work Mitchell did appears to have worked.

Bush inherited North Korea from Clinton, and while Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan, the more accurate depiction of those wars is - the Western world has inherited the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, except Iraq today is comparable to the days when Saddam ruled with his iron first in terms of calm and peace - only without the diabolical regime and nuclear weapons.

The heating planet is a non-starter and we should leave it to the side until we in the US begin to start having a summer. Don't credit Obama with this - not when his plan includes curbs on emissions to begin in 3 years and raising taxes. THAT doesn't fix anything. That takes money from the American people to spread around the globe to people who do not do very much other than to hate the US - and their hate is not because we pollute, for we do much more than pollute, unless your TV is locked on Earth Channel 24/7.

The US President does not lack self-confidence. On his first day in the White
House, press secretary Robert Gibbs reported that he "looked very comfortable in
his surroundings" notwithstanding that a mere four years earlier, his
surroundings were the Illinois Senate.

And this means what? You draw from this a conclusion, or support for a position that is not reasonable. Clinton looked comfortable. Bush was comfortable. Reagan was very comfortable. Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41 were all comfortable. Kennedy was comfortable, even Johnson was comfortable. Perhaps only Carter was uncomfortable.

Obama's confidence extends from the personal to the political. He has
promised to change the way America is perceived, work towards a nuclear-free
world, bring peace to the Holy Land and effect a comprehensive settlement
between Israelis and Arabs, and avert a climate catastrophe at the same time
that he retools the financial system and kick-starts an economic recovery.

The dislike for the US among Arabs - the ones who count, because it is the ones who count who protest, burn flags, plant bombs, and kill people. The others who are peaceful, law abiding - do not count. In large part because of the nature of Islam. So the ones who count hate us as much or more - the US has shown weakness and to those who count, weakness must be taken advantage of.

Egypt, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas are no closer to peace with Israel and acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state today than they were thirty years ago. Israel has been alienated, the Israeli people (majority) do not like Obama.

Obama is not averting a climate catastrophe - the changes don't go into effect for three years, and when they do the bloody joke is on us all - NOTHING will change except to transfer hundreds of millions from the rich to the poor. Same pollution, different method of computing it.

A nuclear free world - what a joke. Within six months of being in office, Bush met with Putin and the two of them deactivated the majority of our stockpiles and took them off line. They went back to the storage shelves. That was a major step and done without the usual pomp and circumstance. Obama has talked a lot, as nuclear technology seems to be proliferating - Saudi Arabia and Egypt have made public statements about their interest in nuclear reactors (bombs). Russia has said it will never go below a specified level and has in fact re-activated its nuclear arsenal in the last ten months.

The second theme is pragmatism. On Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, Obama
has been prepared to shade his campaign promises in order to conform with the
advice of his military commanders.

In English - he is backpedaling. Or for the very simple liberals - he is not about to fulfill his promises. He lied.

Obama is attracted to things that work.

Like socialized medicine? Ha.

His decision to make Hillary Clinton secretary of state strengthened his
administration but also stunted the careers of many loyal foreign policy wonks
who had spurned Clinton in the primaries and signed up with the Obama campaign
instead.

Mr. Fullilove, you must understand why he put her where he did. Mitchell, Ross, and Holbrooke run the show. Samantha Powers and Rice handle the rest. Hillary is left as the token spokesperson for State, without real power, popping up and down as Kennedy used Johnson - an emissary to keep him away and out of the country. Hillary is not a political threat to him while she holds the job she does. That is very nearly the entire reason for her having the job she holds.

Obama's pre-presidential writings and speeches on foreign policy were mainly
free of ideological content, and some of his statements as president reveal a
professorial pragmatism. In Europe, Obama was asked whether he believed in
American exceptionalism. "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I
suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe
in Greek exceptionalism." Does Obama not realise that America is unique, a
shining city on a hill which cannot possibly be compared with other countries?

Come on, his statements, writing in law school, social involvements - all show his leanings. He has been shaped by Marxian theory in law, history, cultural interpretations ... across the board he shows a very Marxian analysis and purpose to his driven agenda. he does not believe in American exceptionalism any more than nearly every liberal academic in the country - America is not exceptional, we are all the same, we are equal, they are good, we are good, their is not judgment as to which is better for we cannot judge. Marxian and also very academic.

He recorded a video message to the Iranian people commemorating the Persian new year, pressed "reset" on relations with Russia, and made nice with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. Obama is no pacifist, as Somali pirates have learned, but diplomacy is on the rise.

'Reset' with the Russians. That is why they have mocked him and ignored US overtures. They play with the US, but understand the leadership is weak, and they will use that weakness to their political gain in several countries in Eastern Europe coming very soon.

Message to the Iranian people - that really went over well ... with NO ONE. Amindinejad doesn't like Obama and the people never heard it nor did those who did, care.

Hugs to Chavez. Hugs to Ortega and Morales. And from all this hugging and useless banter Mr. Fullilove determines Obama is not a pacifist? Nothing presented would suggest anything but. The Somali pirates are an entirely different story. What happened was ... Obama wanted negotiation (which was ongoing), Obama wanted a trade ($ for the Captain) - the Navy had the three SEAL snipers in place simply as a matter of protocol. While everyone was waiting, Obama was told they could do it 100% without failure, and Obama recognizing that 100% was the best he could get, agreed. His first choice was negotiation, but the pirates were using negotiation to paddle their way to safety.

All this makes for an impressive combination. Most of it is good news for
Australia, although we will have to be smarter and work harder to get access to
Washington's inner councils. Obama doesn't know Australia well, and he's not
really an alliance man anyway, and competition for the president's attention is
fiercer. Like Obama, Kevin Rudd is a pragmatic policy wonk from the
centre-left.

This is interesting. Obama is not an alliance man! But Obama told the world THAT IS EXACTLY what he would do when he was elected. So, is he or not. if not, then this promise was also a lie.

Bush's approach of punishing adversaries by not speaking to them did not
work. It makes sense to reach out to competitors and to try to identify mutual
interests. But not all interests are mutual or even reconcilable.

This is a statement offered with no facts. Which adversaries? N Korea? Iran? We NEVER stopped speaking to Iran. Lies told and repeated often enough everyone believes them and repeats them. The US continued to hold low level meetings with Iran all through the Bush terms. The US was constantly in meetings with North Korea. Nearly six years of meetings. Just because you never paid attention to the news and or didn't look for details on the meetings does not mean they did not occur.

International relations is an unsentimental business; you must deploy leverage
and pressure as well as sweet reason.

And under Bush we exerted the carrot - oil and food to North Korea and the pressure. It worked until the Democrats took control of Congress and if you review the history, it was in late 2006 when North Korea again went off the deep end. Bush, embattled and attacked daily, Democrats taking control - North Korea took advantage, and what better party to have in power when you do it - the Democrats.

It is good to be loved, said Machiavelli, but more important to be feared.

True. But liberals are about feelings and to be loved for liberals and Democrats is a sign that everyone respects you and being feared is a bad thing, like when you went to church and were told to be afraid of God ... a bad thing ...

Come to think of it, I don't much agree with very much Mr. Fullilove argues, except the belief Machiavelli held about love and fear / respect.

Obama

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States ..."

Question:

How many times in our nation's history, has someone who was NOT the Chief Justice, administered the presidential oath?

[Imagine the sound from Jeopardy]



Give up?

8 times.

The last time - Lyndon Johnson, on board Airforce One, enroute to Washington after the murder of President Kennedy.

The previous occasion: August 1923 - Calvin Coolidge. His father administered the oath. His father was a notary public.

Before Coolidge, we would have to go back to Theodore Roosevelt who had the oath administered by a district judge from New York, in 1901.

We would have to go back to 1881 to find the next oath administered by someone who was not a Chief Justice - Chester Arthur, had the oath administered by a justice from the New York Supreme Court.


1850 - Millard Fillmore


1841 - John Tyler


1793 - George Washington


Interesting.





"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."












oath