President Obama

[EasyEd]

I'm wondering what posters' reactions have been to President Obama's first weeks in office. I, obviously, am not a supporter of his policies and many of his actions to date but wanted to get reactions from others.

I'll start it off with one observation and that concerns the bill he signed yesterday. During the campaign he pledged there would be no earmarks yet the bill contained many earmarks from both Republicans and Democrats. At the signing he decried the use of earmarks but signed it anyway rather than warning the Congress beforehand he would not sign it or actually vetoing it. Sorta reminded me of a friend that used to say "I'm going to stop procrastinating, starting tomorrow".

I don't mean to have this thread only about earmarks but other early observation on his presidency.

[Bando]

Mar 12, 2009 9:46:39 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I'm wondering what posters' reactions have been to President Obama's first weeks in office. I, obviously, am not a supporter of his policies and many of his actions to date but wanted to get reactions from others.

I'll start it off with one observation and that concerns the bill he signed yesterday. During the campaign he pledged there would be no earmarks yet the bill contained many earmarks from both Republicans and Democrats. At the signing he decried the use of earmarks but signed it anyway rather than warning the Congress beforehand he would not sign it or actually vetoing it. Sorta reminded me of a friend that used to say "I'm going to stop procrastinating, starting tomorrow".

I don't mean to have this thread only about earmarks but other early observation on his presidency.

I'll bite. Generally, I'm happy. Campaign promises on Gitmo, torture, the global gag rule, Iraq withdrawal, and stem cells have all been enacted (admittedly, these aren't good things from your perspective, but you asked for my take). I've also enjoyed the release of the OLC memos, the Lily Ledbetter act, and the ending of DEA medical marijuana raids.

Obama's term thus far has been dominated by two themes: reversing the Bush administration and the economic crisis. As important as these two are, they don't really give him any opening to create his own legacy, the "change you can believe in" so to speak. He's making the right noises thus far in terms of fundamental health care and energy reform (the transportation bill reauthorization next year will be telling), but neither of those projects are anywhere near fruition as of yet. Obviously, he has 4-8 years to go and it's early, but this should be noted nonetheless.

I also think that Obama has no good options when it comes to the financial crisis, so he and Geithner are simply doing things to buy time and kick the can down the road. He's not being bold enough, in other words.

[TC]

I'll hold off judgement until I see what he enacts in terms of cap-and-trade and/or carbon tax.

[Boz]

I could go on forever about the number of (mostly domestic) policy objections I have to what Obama has done to date, but I will say that I support his approach to Afghanistan (both the increase in troops and the continuation of targeting areas in Pakistan). I support the Iraq policy, which really isn't a departure from what was already agreed upon in the SOFA, for the main reason that he is taking a flexible approach to withdrawal. Gitmo remains to be seen. If he actually ends up closing that (still not a done deal) and a lot of these people are released, I cannot support that. If we're just moving them to another prison, particularly outside of the US, then what's the big deal really?

I would like to comment on the stem cell announcement, however. Of course, I'm not in agreement with that for a number of reasons, both moral and practical. But I knew that it was coming. My real problem is with the manner in which he made the announcement.

First of all, let's not be too revisionist with President Bush, OK? Before he allowed limited research there was NO federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Yes, he restricted it because he had moral qualms about it. I know a lot of people disagreed with that decision, but this nonsense about not letting ideology interfere with science is pure hogwash. Guess what, President Obama? In saying that, you DID, in fact, put forth an ideology.

To say that moral viewpoints have no place in science is ridiculously irresponsible, in my opinion. Hey, science gave us nuclear and chemical weapons too. Let's go use them!! What if the researchers at NIH come back and say that the only way they can make real progress in this area is to employ cloning, or develop embryos for the sole purpose of research, and that those avenues should be allowed by the federal guidelines? Should ideology or morality still take a back seat then, Mr. President?

I am all for scientific research, but I think his announcement was A) an revisionist and inaccurate description of the Bush policy, B) devoid of any responsibility for what he is enabling, and C) a totally unnecessary and gratuitous slap in the face to people who have serious moral concerns about this.

Stealing from Charles Krauthammer's source, it was biologist James Thompson, pioneer in embryonic stem cell research, who said, "If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." I heard very little thought in Obama's announcement.


Other than that, the only thing I will add -- for now -- is that Robert Gibbs cannot be fired or re-assigned soon enough. He is accomplishing the impossible: making Scott McClellan look downright competent by comparison.

Druing the election weren't we going to start a thread with the headline "You're Not Doing Me Any Favors"? We can definitely file Gibbs under that one, IMO.

EDIT: Add Hillary Clinton to that list if she continues to claim that American democracy is older than European democracy. ;D

[TC]

Robert Gibbs is doing fine.

On the other hand, Sheila Bair can't be fired fast enough. She needs to get back to writing children's books.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Without getting into the gory details, so far I'm very pleased with the Obama admin and the president himself on all but a couple of (albeit expensive) issues.

[EasyEd]

President Kennedy took us to the brink of nuclear war when the Soviets started delivering offensive weapons to Cuba. Now the Russians might be preparing to use Cuba and Venezuela as bases for their bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This has gotten little play in the press. What should the President do and why?

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9776268a25e75ad5b44b4d87e8a32a02.4a1&show_article=1

[The Stig]

They're talking about stopovers, not permanent bases.

I think Obama will probably follow this precedent (quoting the article): "The previous US administration of George W. Bush officially shrugged off the Russian aviation and naval moves in Latin America, characterising them as more for show than anything representing a military worry for the United States."

Anyways, Russia doesn't really have a need for bomber bases in the Western Hemisphere. In 1962 Russia's long range ICBM capability was pretty weak, so putting MRBM's and IRBM's in Cuba changed the game in a big way. Today Russia has all the ICBM's they need, so Cuba and Venezuela are merely symbols.

[strummer8526]

Mar 15, 2009 14:29:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

President Kennedy took us to the brink of nuclear war when the Soviets started delivering offensive weapons to Cuba. Now the Russians might be preparing to use Cuba and Venezuela as bases for their bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This has gotten little play in the press. What should the President do and why?

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9776268a25e75ad5b44b4d87e8a32a02.4a1&show_article=1

Put a boot in their ass. That's probably the sort of nuanced foreign policy we should go for in this instance.

[Bando]

Mar 15, 2009 17:34:22 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Mar 15, 2009 14:29:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

President Kennedy took us to the brink of nuclear war when the Soviets started delivering offensive weapons to Cuba. Now the Russians might be preparing to use Cuba and Venezuela as bases for their bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This has gotten little play in the press. What should the President do and why?

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9776268a25e75ad5b44b4d87e8a32a02.4a1&show_article=1

Put a boot in their ass. That's probably the sort of nuanced foreign policy we should go for in this instance.

Unless President Obama immediately unleashes global thermonuclear war on Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, he will be acting weak in the face of grave hypothetical threats from the Russian air force chief.

Please, Republicans, keep telling yourselves that you lost the last two elections because you weren't crazy enough.

[MassHoya]

Considering the complete partisanship of the Republicans, President Obama has done well - stem cells, Afghanistan, Gitmo. It's way too early to gauge his programs' impact on the economy. His popularity numbers are high, which is a bonus in getting through to the American public.

[TBird41]

Mar 15, 2009 19:32:34 GMT -5 MassHoya said:

Considering the complete partisanship of the Republicans, President Obama has done well - stem cells, Afghanistan, Gitmo. It's way too early to gauge his programs' impact on the economy. His popularity numbers are high, which is a bonus in getting through to the American public.

Stupid Republicans and their massive minorities in the House and the Senate! How is a President supposed to get anything done with one of the largest majorities ever in both the House AND the Senate??!!!??

[EasyEd]

Mar 15, 2009 18:07:58 GMT -5 Bando said:

Mar 15, 2009 17:34:22 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Put a boot in their ass. That's probably the sort of nuanced foreign policy we should go for in this instance.

Unless President Obama immediately unleashes global thermonuclear war on Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, he will be acting weak in the face of grave hypothetical threats from the Russian air force chief.

Please, Republicans, keep telling yourselves that you lost the last two elections because you weren't crazy enough.

Bando, at your age you were not around to experience the multi-year cold war with nuclear arsenals pointed at each other. You were not around to remember that Kennedy and Kruschschev met and Nikata judged Kennedy to be weak so he decided to test him by putting offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba and the resulting near-nuclear war. All you know is what you have studied or heard. You did not experience it. So it's not surprising you poked fun at STRATEGIC bombers possibly being based a few miles off the coast of Florida. The Russians are contemplating testing our President to see if he is soft or hard and their future foreign policy will reflect how our President reacts. China will also be watching with eyes on Taiwan. North Korea will be watching. Iran will be watching. So far our President has been silent.

[Cambridge]

I don't disagree with you Ed, I just disagree with the conclusion that silence equals inaction or weakness. If it turns out nothing is happening behind the scenes in response to this, which I highly doubt, then I will agree with you. However, if, as I believe, this is being handled in backchannels, I agree with the method of the administration's response. What good would stoking nationalist fires and international fear do in an already unstable and uncertain environment? Best to discuss it behind closed doors or resolve it with unseen actions.

[The Stig]

Mar 16, 2009 12:13:39 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Bando, at your age you were not around to experience the multi-year cold war with nuclear arsenals pointed at each other. You were not around to remember that Kennedy and Kruschschev met and Nikata judged Kennedy to be weak so he decided to test him by putting offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba and the resulting near-nuclear war. All you know is what you have studied or heard. You did not experience it. So it's not surprising you poked fun at STRATEGIC bombers possibly being based a few miles off the coast of Florida. The Russians are contemplating testing our President to see if he is soft or hard and their future foreign policy will reflect how our President reacts. China will also be watching with eyes on Taiwan. North Korea will be watching. Iran will be watching. So far our President has been silent.

1. Nikita wasn't just testing JFK with the missiles in Cuba. He was trying to close a strategic gap by bringing new weapons into play.

2. Read the article you posted again. The Russians will not be basing any aircraft in Cuba.

3. The Russians already have bombers close to our airspace (they resumed patrols a few years ago). A bomber stopping to refuel in Cuba doesn't change the strategic picture at all.

JFK didn't act on Cuba because he was trying to look strong, he acted because the missiles in Cuba were a game changer. In 1962 the Soviets only had a few ICBM's, but they had lots of MRBM's and IRBM's. Putting the shorter range missiles in Cuba completely changed the strategic picture.

In 2009, a 50-year old bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95) stopping in Cuba to refuel doesn't change the strategic picture at all. Raising tensions just for the sake of looking strong doesn't help anybody.

[Boz]

Mar 15, 2009 19:32:34 GMT -5 MassHoya said:

Considering the complete partisanship of the Republicans, President Obama has done well - stem cells, Afghanistan, Gitmo. It's way too early to gauge his programs' impact on the economy. His popularity numbers are high, which is a bonus in getting through to the American public.

Yes, that's a nice talking point, but exactly where was the "complete partisanship" of the Republicans on these issues you mentioned?

Sure, Obama has been criticized by conservative activists on stem cells, but it's not like he's had much criticism from elected Republicans en masse. Everyone, more or less, is in support of the Afghanistan strategy. Maybe not Ron Paul, I grant you that. And Republicans, for the most part, have been pretty silent about Gitmo.

Personally, I'd have liked to hear a little MORE objection on the stem cell issue (see my post above). With Gitmo, it's a little too early to say, but even Obama's lawyers are now arguing against constitutional rights being conferred on Gitmo detainees, so again, this is not as big an issue as some are claiming.

Now, if by "completely partisan," you are referring to the stimulus bill, omnibus bill and budget....can you point to where any Democrats are not acting the same way? With respect to those issues, there is a lot more bipartisanship in opposition to them than there is in support of them.

[EasyEd]

Mar 16, 2009 12:34:07 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Mar 16, 2009 12:13:39 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Bando, at your age you were not around to experience the multi-year cold war with nuclear arsenals pointed at each other. You were not around to remember that Kennedy and Kruschschev met and Nikata judged Kennedy to be weak so he decided to test him by putting offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba and the resulting near-nuclear war. All you know is what you have studied or heard. You did not experience it. So it's not surprising you poked fun at STRATEGIC bombers possibly being based a few miles off the coast of Florida. The Russians are contemplating testing our President to see if he is soft or hard and their future foreign policy will reflect how our President reacts. China will also be watching with eyes on Taiwan. North Korea will be watching. Iran will be watching. So far our President has been silent.

1. Nikita wasn't just testing JFK with the missiles in Cuba. He was trying to close a strategic gap by bringing new weapons into play.

2. Read the article you posted again. The Russians will not be basing any aircraft in Cuba.

3. The Russians already have bombers close to our airspace (they resumed patrols a few years ago). A bomber stopping to refuel in Cuba doesn't change the strategic picture at all.

JFK didn't act on Cuba because he was trying to look strong, he acted because the missiles in Cuba were a game changer. In 1962 the Soviets only had a few ICBM's, but they had lots of MRBM's and IRBM's. Putting the shorter range missiles in Cuba completely changed the strategic picture.

In 2009, a 50-year old bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95) stopping in Cuba to refuel doesn't change the strategic picture at all. Raising tensions just for the sake of looking strong doesn't help anybody.

Agree with #1 but Nikita would not have used this if he had not judged JFK to be weak, based on face-to-face meeting with him.

As for #2, google the subject and you will see it's more than merely refueling. They are looking to base some bombers there.

As for #3, it's true but they are limited to about 30 minutes on station now but if they could base the bombers in Cuba they would have extended time on station.

I have a question, do you choose to totally ignore the possibility of Russia basing strategic bombers in Cuba? Bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons? I say that's a game changer as it augments their ICBM fleet.

As for the possibility the Obama administration is conducting behind the scene negotiations with Russia, I hope that is going on but I seriously doubt it. Even if it is going on, it's usual to make some public statement like "this is serious" or the like.

[TBird41]

Anyone else getting confused by the use of "Nikita" in this thread? I keep wondering why Nikita Mescheriakov is basing bombers in Cuba instead of working on his three point shot. Is it because he's not quick enough to be a good defender, and so he wants some bombers to back him up? And, if he is going to base a bomber in Cuba, would it be able to hit the U.S.? Or would it end missing everywhere except Syracuse?

And is it really fair for someone who shot under 27% from behind the arc and got pushed around in the Big East to be calling anyone, even JFK, weak?

;D

[Boz]

Yeah, but he sure did BURY Syracuse, didn't he? (well, at least the first time around he did).

Well done, TBird! ;D

[Bando]

Mar 16, 2009 15:36:50 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Mar 16, 2009 12:34:07 GMT -5 The Stig said:

1. Nikita wasn't just testing JFK with the missiles in Cuba. He was trying to close a strategic gap by bringing new weapons into play.

2. Read the article you posted again. The Russians will not be basing any aircraft in Cuba.

3. The Russians already have bombers close to our airspace (they resumed patrols a few years ago). A bomber stopping to refuel in Cuba doesn't change the strategic picture at all.

JFK didn't act on Cuba because he was trying to look strong, he acted because the missiles in Cuba were a game changer. In 1962 the Soviets only had a few ICBM's, but they had lots of MRBM's and IRBM's. Putting the shorter range missiles in Cuba completely changed the strategic picture.

In 2009, a 50-year old bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95) stopping in Cuba to refuel doesn't change the strategic picture at all. Raising tensions just for the sake of looking strong doesn't help anybody.

Agree with #1 but Nikita would not have used this if he had not judged JFK to be weak, based on face-to-face meeting with him.

As for #2, google the subject and you will see it's more than merely refueling. They are looking to base some bombers there.

As for #3, it's true but they are limited to about 30 minutes on station now but if they could base the bombers in Cuba they would have extended time on station.

I have a question, do you choose to totally ignore the possibility of Russia basing strategic bombers in Cuba? Bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons? I say that's a game changer as it augments their ICBM fleet.

As for the possibility the Obama administration is conducting behind the scene negotiations with Russia, I hope that is going on but I seriously doubt it. Even if it is going on, it's usual to make some public statement like "this is serious" or the like.

But your fears only make sense if you're unaware of the invention of the intercontinental ballistic missile. I know this might be a news flash, but Russia does not need airplanes to nuke us to smithereens.

Furthermore, saber-rattling is not the proper response to every foreign policy situation. I don't see how responding with militaristic bluster would make the Russians less likely to base bombers in Cuba.