Obama's Governus Interruptus
Points made in this piece seem harsh, but they do reflect the truth, in my opinion, and ought not to be buried.
Snips:
Dude went to Columbia and Harvard. He seems smart. What’s wrong with him? Is he — as his former colleagues at the University of Chicago, who noticed that he never published — lazy? He’s certainly a far cry from the LBJ who, according to his biographer Robert Caro, routinely burned the midnight oil committing every sentence of every bill, ever, to memory.
Obviously, a president who finds time to watch sports, play golf and kick off for vacations for weeks at a time — while the global economy is melting down — hell, while his signature legislative accomplishment, Obamacare has all but completely imploded — is lazy as all get up. Still, there’s nothing new about presidential sloth. Reagan, Clinton and Bush all worked less than the average minimum-wage worker whose misery they were steadfastly ignoring.
Obama is unique, though. It goes beyond laziness. He doesn’t follow tried and true practices of presidential governance that have served his predecessors for more than two centuries. Intentional? Who knows? It seems more than likely that (and this is so outlandish that I’ve literally waited years to write these words) he is so ignorant of history that he doesn’t know why and how previous presidents have failed and succeeded. Because, let’s face it, if this is three-dimensional chess, he’s down three queens.
Regarding the "lazy" accusation. I suspected as much way back in 2008, even though I did vote for him in that election. In one of the presidential debates I clearly recall his answer when asked a question on which part of presidential duties he'd dislike most. He responded along the lines that he doesn't enjoy routine office-type work and leaves all that to assistants. Which is alright, on the surface of it, most managers do the same, but for me it clanged a warning bell
Ah well, three more years......"we might have someone worse in 2016" I hear someone whisper - or shout. We might indeed, but that doesn't excuse the now.
2 comments:
Ted Rall's insinuations toward the Obama administration are equally applicable to the citizens of the USA. POTUS is in the same shared dreamland as his constituents. I'll look forward to Rall's next article that substitutes "Obama" for "Congress".
For every effort exerted by POTUS, there has been an equal and opposite effort against. For every effort exerted by the constituency, there has been an equal and opposite effort against. For the most part, few exceptions. The majority of America is always outraged, but doesn't care enough to get off their butts and do anything...too busy with extraneous riff-raff that doesn't amount to anything.
I do take exception to Rall's upholding of Johnson's presidency as something "special", particularly contrasted to Obama. LBJ's presidency was with a Democratic president, senate, and house...so much easier to get things done. Rall's "war on poverty" link in his article makes me wonder if Rall actually read that Wiki article, as it's not too flattering to LBJ. Read Wiki's LBJ page...it's controversial, as well. I lived through Johnson's administration and many of LBJ's efforts were ill-conceived in the short and long-run.
As I always tell you, Twilight, Obama has disappointed me, too, but I am not so eager to slam him as so many others are. He inherited one-hell-of-a-Bush-Cheney-mess...I know, that was in the past and we are talking about the here and now...but, Obama inherited ONE-HELL-OF-A-MESS. I am not defending Obama, but I certainly don't think the guy's lazy, either.
It was only a year ago that Obama took a very strong stand on gun control. Twilight, do you remember the public outcry against Obama? I sure do. Obama's desire to control guns led to the highest ever sales of guns, rifles, assault rifles...ammunition was being (and probably still is) purchased by the ton for every household.
My bitch with Obama is his strengthening the Patriot Act and his NSA oversight. Again, both existed prior to Obama...I'm sorely disappointed that he hasn't dismantled both, but I can also understand that if the USA had a major act of terrorism, the Republicans would have his ass...like they don't already. You don't approve of his drone use, but hey, those were also started under Bush...I don't like drones, but I concede that a bomb is a bomb, whether by drone or by plane.
I'm sure you expected my comment as it is, since I've made similar remarks in the past, so let's just agree to disagree right now...LOL.
mike ~ As you say, I wasn't surprised by the tone of your response, I hardly expected you'd have changed your mind in the time since we last commented on the Prez.
It's important that an opposing view such as yours be placed here - balance is everything. :-)
Your views are quite similar to those of my husband. Y'all are unwilling to see that the Emperor is parading stark nekkid. There must be millions and millions of others in the US whose views exactly mirror yours. I agree with Ted Rall though, and with the first 4 commenters on his piece at Smirking Chimp.
There's no proper "left" in this country (only scattered voices around the net) that is top, bottom and middle of all its problems in my opinion. Damn-it if so-called liberals will not even stand up in large numbers against the inhuman droning of innocents abroad in countries with whom we are not, nor are we likely to be, at war - what hope is there? I shouldn't think to much on this - it makes me crazy!
Post a Comment