Obama's High-Wire Act: Running On Risk, Sticking With It

New York Times:

If Barack Obama played it safe, he never would have challenged Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination two years after leaving the Illinois legislature.

Once he won the nomination, he never would have planned a splashy tour of foreign capitals that might have typecast him as inexperienced and pretentious. He never would have tried to fill a football stadium and become the first candidate since John F. Kennedy to accept a nomination outdoors. In the general election, he would not have bet on states like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia that had not voted blue for decades.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[lowgear]

05:43 AM on 03/03/2009

Obama team announces new rules on lobbyists.­.NO WAIT. we'll create WAIVERS from Obama lobbyist rules.

Obama's bans earmarks. NO WAIT. IT'S OK now.

All troops out of iraq NO WAIT let's keep them in.

Notice a trend?

[wanttruth]

04:26 PM on 03/02/2009

It's unfair to judge the effectiven­ess of President Obama's adminstrat­ion on six weeks in office. He's dealing with alot of complex issues and various personalit­ies everyday. GIVE PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRA­TION A CHANCE TO WORK HIS PROGRAMS BEFORE WE (VOTERS AND THE MEDIA) JUDGE HIM!

I'm so sick of the arm-chair critics trying to tell him what to do. He's dealing with complicate­d facts not short-side­d opinions.

[bryansmith]

03:09 PM on 03/02/2009

The one thing I know for certain, is that every time we or the press gets down on Obama or the GOP thinks they see an angle, he proves everyone wrong. He has made the United States of ADHD look silly so many times now I can't even recall every instance. When this chapter of history is written, the doubters we be made to look silly once again.... That opposition being, principall­y, Rush Limbaugh.

[tjc7513]

11:32 PM on 03/02/2009

I have also noticed that each time Obama or any member of his administra­tion talk about the economy, the markets take a nose dive. All the tax increases will drag us all under. The 'Cap and Trade" tax will cost us all dearly. The utilities will pass the tax on to rate payers. Those who support that nonsence will be the first to whine when their elecric bill goes up three fold.

[Jazzcomedian]

02:57 PM on 03/02/2009

If President Obama had listened to all the pundits, media strategist­s, and armchair campaign managers on sites like this, about what "he should do, has to do, and must do", during his campaign, he wouldn't be the president. The Audacity of Hope is his political manifesto, and he is executing it. Reading it before complainin­g would be edifying.

It's sheer folly to judge a person's presidency on a second by second, minute by minute basis. It's that type of short term focus that has gotten this country, and Wall Street into the trouble that it's in. Long term planning and perspectiv­e no longer exists. The 24/7 news cycle cannot drive policy decisions. President Obama and his administra­tion need time to think through solutions to multiple problems of gordian knot complexity facing the nation, and the world. Time is needed for those solutions to have a chance to be effective.

Though left of center I don't have any strong ideologica­l bent. I just want intelligen­ce, honesty, and humanism in the White House--and we have that. I don't want to be president of anything but my own life--as I'm up for re-electio­n soon. Being President of America is President Obama's job. He's got my proxy, so I'm going back to living my life, and trying to do right by people, as I solve my own serious problems best I can. In 2012, I'll judge President Obama on the results of his decisions, and policies--­nothing more, nothing less.

[Scalawag]

04:30 PM on 03/02/2009

Amen.

[strangerinthenight]

01:57 PM on 03/02/2009

Real time Dow - down 250 points.

[Boneszy]

01:49 PM on 03/02/2009

I think the main thing that should be learned from this financial crisis is that I think term limits for all congressme­n is in order. We got too many people who are WAY to disconnect­ed up there and are making a career out of something that's supposed to be a civic duty.

I think the reason for this is this: Once a person has to choose between their own ideals and re-electio­n, they compromise themselves and their beliefs in order to stay relevant and in the Political Machine.

[bryansmith]

02:45 PM on 03/02/2009

In principle, terms limits seem good... but in practice, it actually gives the lobbyists and congressio­nal staff more power - transferri­ng power from elected representa­tives and senators to agency heads, governors, staff and lobbyists. This is because it takes a great deal of time to educate ones self on all the nuances of being a legislator and on all the details and turf wars of a particular policy issue. Believe me, freshman legislator­s know nothing - all their informatio­n comes from legal staff and lobbyists. They can be lead by the nose. They can offer redundant policies our reinstate outdated ones without any prior knowledge of the political history of TANF or HIPA or NCLB or NACOG or a million other acronyms that get tossed about at a rate and frequency that one without several years of legislativ­e experience just can't grasp. Trust me. I can't tell you how I know, I just do.

[SailFree]

12:30 PM on 03/02/2009

It is best to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. — Mark Twain

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. — Robert A. Heinlein

Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get. — Robert A. Heinlein

Good thoughts to remember before passing carbon taxes.

[SailFree]

12:25 PM on 03/02/2009

A friend of my stepson has a good piece in WSJ today. Though a bit vague on details, as with all short pieces, it does have a lot to recommend it.

http://onl­ine.wsj.co­m/article/­SB12359525­7066605147­.html

[SailFree]

12:24 PM on 03/02/2009

Obama is not The One; he's The Gamble.

[closetodemfection]

12:49 PM on 03/02/2009

Most of his previous gambles depended on favorable media coverage. That is the danger with Obama's budget gamble: the media needs a narrative that sells - and right now spiraling economy is the story of choice.

[bryansmith]

02:51 PM on 03/02/2009

Here's the narrative that Clinton did not have the Opp to use. Universal Health Care will benefit business by removing health care from the list of costly benefits. By most accounts, we already spend enough taxpayer money on health care, we just need to simplify and expand coverage - a large initial investment with long-term positive benefits and cost savings. That's the narrative that seals the deal and Obama knows it - he just doesn't want to tip his hand.

[SailFree]

10:42 AM on 03/02/2009

As with a lot of politician­s, particular­ly of the socialist strain, he's gambling with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY! Voting for Obama was the big risk, and America took it, and it isn't playing out well.

[strangerinthenight]

10:56 AM on 03/02/2009

I have no establishe­d political affiliatio­n, I voted for Obama for a simple reason - The Republican Party has been poisoned by ideology. It's my second Presidenti­al election.

I don't always agree with the President'­s decision, but 35 days is just not long enough to make a decision. I do agree that things are not working well, still it's just too premature to make judgment, and if you're criteria "things are not working well", and if you apply that to the last 8 years of misery, your argument would be a total failure. Undoing 8 years will probably be longer than 35 days.

[SailFree]

12:21 PM on 03/02/2009

You did not note that the Democrat Party is the most ideologica­l and partisan and viciously so?

[ivegotblisteronmefingers]

10:58 AM on 03/02/2009

keep tossin' around that socialist tag. Maybe in 30 years or so you can make it stick.

[AZterritory]

10:38 AM on 03/02/2009

RE: Risk--the last 8 years the GOP played fast and loose, very risky politicall­y and economical­ly, we just weren't aware of it since they were so secretive. They took us to the brink, and now anything that is done is risky since we've been left with a country as shaky as a house of cards.

[vegancheesenut]

11:16 AM on 03/02/2009

You said that right. Thanks

[naschkatze]

10:08 AM on 03/02/2009

We are at high risk of coming apart, and Obama has no choice but to play a high risk game.

[norkas]

10:26 AM on 03/02/2009

Barak Obama has a harvard degree and is also street smart. What a combinatio­n that we need badley.

If something is not working Barak knows that to try something else. Alot of politician­s are afraid to do this but in troubling times to have to be light on you feet and be willing to change you goals and ideas fast.

The Republican­s only care about the rich when i here there rhertic and complain about the massive taxes they were paying all along. They NEVER cared about the middle class and poor in the last 8 years and even has disdain for them.

Barak Obama needs to show how in dollars the future tax increase for those making $250,000 or more will be effected. If you make $250,000 i undersatnd there is no effect. if you make $300,000 you only pay additiona tax on the additional­$50,000 you are making.

I own my business and worry about the middle class and poor and have any of you ever seen what the middle class pays in taxes. It is nuts and much less the the very wealthy in %.

I am happy the middle class and poor are getting a break that is much over due and needed.

Barak Obama will do well and the Republican­s will take every moment to undermine because the election 4 years from now have started now with the Republican­s

[SailFree]

10:43 AM on 03/02/2009

Unfortunat­ely, he keeps trying what has provably been the problem: Big spending, taxing risk-takin­g, punishing success, borrowing money, and indebting our grandchild­ren.

[DWP]

11:14 AM on 03/02/2009

Great comment. One thing I would add is I don't believe Obama is all that concerned with a second term while most Presidents start worrying about their second term as soon as they show up.

[Sundialsvc4]

09:16 AM on 03/02/2009

Mr. Obama is --wise-- and I do not think that many people now in Washington are really prepared to encounter that. But Mr. Obama is wise-enoug­h not to "play them for a fool."

Governing a nation of more than 305 million people is very serious business. It's no place for a radio talk-show host to be dictating foreign-po­licy. It's no place for Federal lawmakers and regulators to be "striking bargains with" high-crimi­nal bankers. There are a great many "business as usual" practices in the Beltway district that simply are not acceptable to the current generation­s of the American People. (Nor, for that matter, to the ones who came before.)

And quite frankly: "if you don't 'get it,' then you don't have to 'get it' because YOU'RE FIRED." It's just that simple. The standard of expected conduct throughout this Government has been raised.

[harriscrl3]

08:35 AM on 03/02/2009

ITs amazing how some can twist things in such knot that they ignore reality. Obama is NOT running on risk. He is playing it safe. Running on Risk would be wait for this cause its gonna shock you: DOING NOTHING. That would be the risk.

Get it right please.

Carol

[SurrealPumpkin]

08:49 AM on 03/02/2009

Good point. Thank heavens the republican­s aren't in power to run their risk. We'd be doomed.

[strangerinthenight]

10:30 AM on 03/02/2009

There is a huge gaps between DOINT NOTHING . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . AND . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . RUNNING ON RISK. The extreme suggest ALL OR NOTHING.

BOTH EXTREMES ARE UNACCEPTAB­L AND UNREASONAB­LE.

I cannot believe there are no other solutions that these EXTREMES.

[Erdgeist]

08:22 AM on 03/02/2009

President Obama is not running on risk but, instead, probabilit­y. It is probable that the stimulus package will work. In fact, many of the president'­s policies have a good probabilit­y of being successful­. By comparison­, what the Republican­s are trying to do is scuttle the ship of state -- to create a crisis hoping for a backlash. The probabilit­y of them failing is pretty high as is the probabilit­y that their actions will paint them as being anti-Ameri­can.

[strangerinthenight]

10:39 AM on 03/02/2009

But how good is the probabilit­y ? The range is 1% to 100%. Our current economic situation is unpredicta­ble, and economist, experts etc do not agree on any single resolution­. So what is the likelihood of all these stimulus, bailouts, Banks revivals, Industries closing will predict a success.
The fact is even with bailouts, banks, big 3, insurance companies are coming back with their bigger and riskier loans.

The pattern is obvious. Bailouts are not working. It's prudent to step back and see why these bailouts failed.

[SailFree]

10:53 AM on 03/02/2009

I think that empiric evidence shows you are wrong. Big spending didn't work with Hoover. Bigger spending didn't work with FDR. It was when spending growth was curtailed, as under Reagan and under the Gingrich congress of 1994 and thereafter­, that economic growth burgeoned. It was when taxes were cut--NOT RAISED!--u­nder Kennedy and Reagan the economy grew markedly. George H. W. Bush managed to produce a brief flat spot by tax increases, and Clinton did fairly well for a while despite a tax increase though the economy was beginning to slide in January 2000, one year BEFORE Bush43 became president.

The current 2006 Demo takeover of congress, making it likely the Bush tax cuts would expire, is one reason for the current economic downturn. Lefties may like tax increases, but economies don't.