Like the economy, President Obama has been reeling in recent days. But tonight's press conference was the first step to his own political recovery. Hovering over Obama's speech and answers was the ghost of George W. Bush. Again and again, Obama worked to dispel Republican canards about his stimulus package and to point out that it was his free-market critics who got the country into this mess in the first place "by doubling the national debt." His tone was stern and imperative. The president underscored that the age of excess has come to an abrupt end, whether it's bankers toying with other people's money (a nice allusion to Louis Brandeis' famous book, Bankers and Other People's Money) or A-Rod and Co bulking up on steroids.
From the outset, Obama made it abundantly clear that in this crisis he believes that government isn't the problem; it's the answer. It's a measure of how effectively the GOP has tapped into fears about big government that Obama was obliged to defend himself on this score. But as the president observed, he didn't enter office "ginned up" to spend $800 billion, but to gin up the economy itself, it's imperative to create a stimulus that will actually stimulate growth. At the same time, Obama set a high bar for himself in declaring that he should be judged on whether or not his plan creates 4 million jobs, stabilizes the credit markets, and "stems the rate of foreclosure[s]." Still, Obama did not engage in utopian promises about the next year, noting that he doesn't have a "crystal ball" and that it will be a very harsh year.
Obama was at his weakest in defending his embrace of bipartisanship. The blunt fact is that it has failed lamentably. "The Republicans were brought in early," as he noted. But it got him next to nothing. As a result, the shocking thing about the stimulus isn't the spending provisions, but that 35 percent of it is devoted to tax cuts. The most that Obama promised, however, for the future was "consultation," which is an elastic term. Obama called himself the "eternal optimist," but it's probably more a product of wishful thinking to believe that he can convert conservatives back to reality.
After eight years of a president who was barely able to respond to impromptu questions, however, it was simply refreshing to have a leader who can deliver forthright, direct responses, whether it's the fancy footwork that Obama displayed in deflecting a question about Joe Biden's gaffe or the blunt criticism that he directed at major league baseball. That was change that no one could possibly want to quibble about.
Idiocracy-The Fast Approaching New Standard. I was a little disappointed, no quite embarrassed by a man allegedly attended Harvard Law School. We all now know while attending Harvard, that he did not compete in extemporaneous speaking. And the other President who preceded him was clearly far worse in that skill set. So when you compare the two certainly Obama looks much better. But why didn’t you ever draw comparisons of Clinton-Obama or Regan-Obama or Kennedy-Obama?
Let me help illustrate why. Neither Clinton nor Kennedy would have ever taken 13 minutes to answer a question that could have been answered in less than 30 seconds. Nor would they have used a teleprompter to open their town hall meeting. In one meeting with the publc, Kennedy skillfully answered about 32 questions in less than 40 minutes-certainly a goal that Obama should work toward.
It is easy to shine in any public speaking event when you make comparisons to someone that already has a poor skill set....so please do not aid our approach to a nation of idiocracy by praising someone that has a slightly better skill set than his predecessor....
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
An American Patriot
You were disappointed. A lot of us weren't. Next topic.
We;ve been down that road. This is diplomacy, where the words mean something. I thought he did well with the question.
BTW, what part of "No one is above the law" was unclear?
POTUS made it clear that the goal of bipartisanship is a long term goal. He wants to transform the vicious political discourse of the Bush years. Along the way he also wants to win some Republican cooperation. I think 3 repubs are a good start -- especially when you get their votes along with the civil discourse.
Where bipartisanship is concerned, Obama is running a marathon not a relay race. Maybe we should learn to do the same.
Your pure idealism is charming. But talk is cheap when you aren't the one who has to do the negotiating.
At least President Obama is trying to help our country get out of this mess.
The republicans have a plan for failure, even if it tears this country apart.
Meanwhile, the rest of world is laughing at us, because we are too stupid to get it!! Do you know that outside of most 3rd world countries, we have the worst healthcare system, infrastructure and educational system?
Those who say he is already failing are just jealous of his great political talent. They are Republicans and they simply do not know what has hit them. But we are no longer in the Bush era, where the rich and entitled ruled, and the Republicans do not know how to cope with the change. But they will learn to cooperate or they will be thrown out of office by their constituents.
we have more work needs for our nation
that any individual can grasp. . a new stimulas is a place of employment not just an idea or barter.
Development of fuel roads schools education teaching salaries and health reserch..
the next generation needs all of the above.