jump to navigation

Obama and His First 100 Days Part 1 April 29, 2009

Posted by kidkev in Obama First 100 Days.
Tags: , ,

Well, I don’t know where to start.  Hmmmm, I guess first off I will start with an article I saw from Time Magazine.  There were some interesting parts to it.  Like this one:

The idea that a President can be assessed in a mere 100 days is a journalistic conceit.

I am not sure why they threw that in when that is what is happening?  They have article after article about this including 100 days in pictures.  I suppose it is not assessing if you are only praising!  Well let’s take a more candid look at Obama and his first 100 days.

But now Obama went further, using a parable from the Sermon on the Mount – the need for a house built on rock rather than on sand – to describe a future that was nothing less than an overhaul of the nature of American capitalism. “It is simply not sustainable,” he said, “to have an economy where, in one year, 40% of our corporate profits came from a financial sector that was based on inflated home prices, maxed-out credit cards, overleveraged banks and overvalued assets.”

This statement is from the Time article regarding a quote from the POTUS.  First off, is he saying that “American capitalism” does not work?  It would seem that it worked pretty well up to recently.  The more the government got involved the less “sustainable” this became.  The “over leveraged banks” and the rest are a direct result of government being involved with and creating this problem.  Please refer to my post regarding Freddie and Fannie.  So apparently one of his goals is to correct the mistakes the government made and blame it on Capitalism!  Nice.  This is a precursor to Socialism.

I don’t think the banking community understands the scale of the damage that they’ve done to this society,” says a senior Obama financial adviser. And another says, “They’re in denial. They don’t understand how angry people are about a $1 million bonus.

Another quote from the article.  Again please refer to my Freddie and Fannie post.  Shameful passing of the buck or, is it  collecting and hiding the buck(s)?

Enough of the bank stuff for now.  How about his campaign promise to reach across the aisle.

Aides say the President’s moments of frustration almost always have to do with Congress.

Translation:  You will agree with what I want even in his own party.  See famous “we won, get over it” quote.

“He is not very sentimental,” says an Obama aide. “If you’re no longer useful, he’ll cut you loose.”) The President’s willingness to speak candidly about American failures when he travels at home and overseas

Translation:  If you don’t agree with me I have no use for you.

That’s reaching alright.  Nice bi-partisanship.

Let’s take a brief look at his foreign relations.

The second big foreign policy challenge is the natural conflict between the demure slog of diplomacy and the need for the American President to be a strong leader who sets the international agenda. “The one thing Obama hasn’t done in the first 100 days,” says Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, “is the big Middle East speech where he says, ‘This is the settlement. This is what we’re for.’ If he doesn’t do that soon, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is going to set the agenda, not us – and that will be a disaster. If we don’t act now, any chance of a two-state solution will be gone. If he does act now, every government in the world will stand with him.” Except, perhaps, the Israelis and their American supporters in the Jewish and Evangelical communities. Obama’s willingness to override domestic politics for the greater good will be a major test.

There are those who mistake his quiet, deliberative style for softness. There is the fear that he won’t have the strength to stand up to the Israelis (or the Iranians) or to the left wing of his party on health care or to the porkers on the defense budget.

Why would they be using someone from probably one of the lamest Administrations on foreign affairs as Jimmy Carters and his National Security Adviser?!?  The antisemitism runs deep with those two.   Strong leader?   By apologizing (see above quote from him regarding “American failures’) for everything and blaming the worlds ills on America?  Notice how the Times’ article has the part about “stand up to Israel” (again, refer to the first sentence of this paragraph regarding JC and his Security adviser.) and then as to insinuate to a lesser degree “(or the Iranians)”.  Israel is not aloud to defend herself against her enemies?  What kind of non-sense is this?  Please also note the part where they state “the left wing of his party”.  Isn’t he the most left leaning president America has ever had?  Is this a way to have an out when his policies fail (socialism, universal health care etc.). The people that the POTUS has in his cabinet better take note, because when one or more policies fail well..(please refer to the above quote “He’s not very sentimental”).  No wonder he is having trouble putting qualified people into his cabinet.

Well, there is sooo much more but I will leave it at this for now.  I will revisit this subject again shortly.



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: