Obama Finally Leads
I was not originally for Obama. As a matter of fact, I wrote him off early in the campaign as a far left looney, instead supporting McCain, who I saw as much more accommodating to the center. But during the final months of the campaign, it became increasingly clear who was the centrist and who was way out there. McCain, partly by his Palin nomination but also for other reasons, seemed insecure about being a centrist and had to impress the far-right loonies. He was faint on new ideas and he didn’t seem inclined lead Congress. Myself, and an overwhelming number of moderates chose Obama to be the nation’s leader and Obama came into office with tremendously high approval ratings because of his moderate appeal.
But in his first months of office, he has been way too inclined to pass the buck to congress and in so doing, he really lost a lot of that moderate appeal. Nobody likes Congress; it is borderline dysfunctional. Because Obama let Congress lead on the healthcare issue, Obama found himself frequently apologizing for a Congress that nobody likes. In the minds of many, Obama began to seem less moderate than he did on the campaign. Not because he became that way, but because he was being led by the Democratic Party leadership.
Last night was the first night Obama really looked like the legislator-in-chief that so many of us wanted him to be. And he looked brilliant doing it. The truth is, everything he said was perfectly reasonable. He was very accommodating to the legitimate concerns of both parties. And was willing to say the difficult things that needed to be said to be both parties. This is what the moderates voted for. I don’t know what his approval ratings will be after today, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets a boost.
Right, I agree. Although my perspective is largely controlled by what I read – which, I admit, is usually foreign policy stuff – Obama has come across as a distant figure in the recent political uproar over Iran and health care. Being really far away from America gives me an entirely different perspective.
Even though I still think Obama’s foreign policy is still questionable (granted he’s been busy dealing with economic matters), his speech on health care and related issues was what it needed to be – forceful, yet tempered. I think he’s realized its time to play (reasonable) political hardball, because you simply cannot appease the unappeaseable (e.g. majority of American conservatives). It’s time for Obama to pick and fight and ‘win’ it. He needs to establish real credibility; the election has been long over.
Obama got the mandate (more or less). It’s time he proves he deserves it. Fringe idiots need to be put away. It’s time for the GOP (and unreasonable Democrats) to be marginalized and put into their proper place – on the outside looking in. Sorry conservatives and polemical democrats, you had your shot; it’s time you switch things up.
In other news…
http://www.joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com/
For some serious (and very good) analysis of the Joe Wilson outburst, check out Anthony Palmer:
http://www.theseventen.com/2009/09/obama-vs-wilson-public-relations.html
Palmer says that since Wilson’s shout got so much attention, it overshadowed the (semi) legitimate concerns that the Republicans might have had after the speech and it is dominating the news cycle. It is like Wilson gave the Republican response and his tone is being contrasted with Obama’s as representative of the debate overall.
At first I was really angry at the jackass who would yell at the president of the United States during a joint session of Congress. But that yell did so much damage, I could almost give the guy a hug.
Point in case?
I don’t care very much for one party democracies (as Thomas Friedman put it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1). You seem to be content with the Democratic Party just steamrolling their way through but I think there needs to be two healthy parties battling each other for the sake of good policy.
At the moment, I’m happy for the Republicans to get waxed because they are intentionally playing the role of detractor. But in principle having two perspectives on any given issue should make for better laws.
I love that website by the way. I burned may calories this morning because of it.
Believe it or not Chris, I’m with you–I keep waiting for the Republicans to wake up from the many-years-drunk and go ‘hey, we gotta go to school.’ Because when they get elected they tend to do waaaaaay more damage if it’s the nutty side of their party governing than if it’s the ever-disappearing not-nutty side.
I’m the nutty side of my party. My people don’t get elected. Trust.
Steve: What do you not like about Obama’s foreign policy? Obviously besides he isn’t boycotting Israel.
I’m certainly not calling for a boycott (as I stated), nor would I except any U.S. president to do anything close to what is necessary to stop Israel’s expansionist agenda. And I’m not saying I dislike Obama’s foreign policy. There really isn’t much to like or dislike yet. That’s all I’m saying. Of course you could definitely take issue with his “war of necessity” in the Af-Pak region. There I have some major concerns. But, I largely see that as an inherited conflict and an area that is just now coming into major focus given the recent criticism regarding strategy and the Afghanistan presidential election. I’m sure what Obama does, come political and strategic policy in the region, will open a bottle of debate. A bottle I’m sure to drink from.
If I had to say, I think the Af-Pak issue will dominate his administration’s foreign policy agenda, like Iraq did for Bush. And I don’t think this is a good thing, because I’m starting to think it’s an unwinnable and largely unnecessary war. See HERE.
Good stuff. Let me reply on my former post about Afghanistan. See you there…