TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 4, 2009 1:24:55 GMT -5
#4 with me. I said before he went that it was all about his ego and his search for adulation. Whether you like it or not, the whole story before the selection of Rio was about President Obama and Michelle Obama. The story was "will President Obama be able to secure the Olympics for his home city of Chicago". This is what he wanted, the focus on him and the adulation that accompanied it. He got just what he sought. Even now, many in the press are writing that he made a gallant attempt but it's the corrupt IOC. And, even though they lost, Michelle Obama really wowed the committee with her personal story. So, for me it's #4. I don't like President Obama because, among other reasons, the whole presidency has been him pontificating on the latest "crisis" that must be solved immediately and his donning his professor's cap to instruct the uneducated masses as he spends us to oblivion and intrudes more and more into our lives. I am a bit bewildered by some of this criticism but can understand the pride with which it is offered after what truly was an inspirational showing by the Bush-Cheney administration. Be that as it may, could any Republican critic of Obama on this board give us a top 5 in terms of policy of what needs to be done right now? In other words, 5 things that, if Obama proposed it, you would stand down on criticizing Obama at least as to those policies. Perhaps some of these things are left overs that you wish had been done during the Bush administration but they did not get around to it despite their feverish attention to policy matters and fiscal responsibility, but perhaps not. I love this line of reasoning. You're right. No Republican has the right to criticize Obama because of the performance of Bush/Cheney. Obama CAN'T be doing poorly because Bush/Cheney did poorly.  |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 4, 2009 10:55:10 GMT -5
Just curious, what business deals have past Presidents personally brokered? Let me introduce you to the defense industry. Look, I understand the administration of every president, through the commerce department, the trade rep, etc., gets involved in big deals. I just don't remember a President going to the Paris Air Show to try to drum up orders for Boeing. That would be akin to what Obama did here. I'm still not aware of any public pandering like this from past presidents. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 4, 2009 11:29:28 GMT -5
I love this line of reasoning. You're right. No Republican has the right to criticize Obama because of the performance of Bush/Cheney. Obama CAN'T be doing poorly because Bush/Cheney did poorly. Nowhere did my post say anything about "right ," so the point is a straw man. I firmly believe that people can say what they want (within some limits for security etc.). The point about Bush/Cheney is about credibility, which is to say that things like reckless spending became a concern in January 2009, not so much in the period between January 2001 and January 2009 or, to the extent it was a concern, it did not give rise among Republicans to town hall interruptions, a march on the Mall, comparisons of George Bush to Hitler, expressions about the ego of the President, and the like.
It is a challenge, which I believe McDonnell has made to Deeds more or less - come up with ideas and campaign on those. My sense is that some VA voters on this board at least approve of the strategy and like the spirit with which it was offered. I had hoped anyway that my challenge would be similarly easy, but perhaps the question goes to the "good faith" issue that some pollsters have been evaluating of late. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 4, 2009 11:40:54 GMT -5
Let me introduce you to the defense industry. Look, I understand the administration of every president, through the commerce department, the trade rep, etc., gets involved in big deals. I just don't remember a President going to the Paris Air Show to try to drum up orders for Boeing. That would be akin to what Obama did here. I'm still not aware of any public pandering like this from past presidents. Perhaps this is an issue of scale, but one could possibly point to Reagan's involvement/intervention in the air traffic controller negotiation in this conversation, regardless of merits. Other possible sources of inquiry - Blackwater and Halliburton |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Oct 4, 2009 11:55:17 GMT -5
Look, I understand the administration of every president, through the commerce department, the trade rep, etc., gets involved in big deals. I just don't remember a President going to the Paris Air Show to try to drum up orders for Boeing. That would be akin to what Obama did here. I'm still not aware of any public pandering like this from past presidents. Perhaps this is an issue of scale, but one could possibly point to Reagan's involvement/intervention in the air traffic controller negotiation in this conversation, regardless of merits. Other possible sources of inquiry - Blackwater and Halliburton The air traffic controller issue and Blackwater and Halliburton were both domestic items. This was international. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 4, 2009 12:00:12 GMT -5
Perhaps this is an issue of scale, but one could possibly point to Reagan's involvement/intervention in the air traffic controller negotiation in this conversation, regardless of merits. Other possible sources of inquiry - Blackwater and Halliburton The air traffic controller issue and Blackwater and Halliburton were both domestic items. This was international. While Blackwater and Halliburton are both headquartered in the US, I am not sure anybody on the planet would argue that their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan - the proposed subject of WH involvement - is a domestic item. In any event, they are both multinationals, so there is at least some effect internationally in an economic sense. The Reagan issue is at least partly international, given the flow of international traffic to our airports. So the question is one of line drawing, not yes/no, it seems to me. That being said, I thought the question of some (SF or KC) was as to WH involvement in business deals, without much of a qualifier as to international. It might be argued too that you seek out the Olympics because of a belief that it would help us domestically, much like the apparent defense of Blackwater and Halliburton that was made. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 4, 2009 14:43:39 GMT -5
My only problem with this was the seemingly complete inability of Obama to tell his Chicago cronies "Sorry guys, I have other things to do."
I think the issue of priorities is ridiculous. He can fly in and do this and tend to other matters. That's one for the 24-hour newsies to "debate."
My problem was Obama's (continuing lack of) backbone. You know that if you lobby for it and it fails, the GOP dances on your grave. Yet when the old crowd calls, you still stick your neck out? Why? Just stay out of it.
Put another way, what happened for Obama was the downside. You just ordered the loser with a side of misplaced priorities courtesy of the media. What was the potential upside? The 5% chance you brought the Olympics to your former city where half the people don't want them anyway?
Poor decision. The real impact is zero but politically someone in the administration made an awful call.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Oct 4, 2009 15:59:00 GMT -5
The air traffic controller issue and Blackwater and Halliburton were both domestic items. This was international. While Blackwater and Halliburton are both headquartered in the US, I am not sure anybody on the planet would argue that their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan - the proposed subject of WH involvement - is a domestic item. In any event, they are both multinationals, so there is at least some effect internationally in an economic sense. The Reagan issue is at least partly international, given the flow of international traffic to our airports. So the question is one of line drawing, not yes/no, it seems to me. That being said, I thought the question of some (SF or KC) was as to WH involvement in business deals, without much of a qualifier as to international. It might be argued too that you seek out the Olympics because of a belief that it would help us domestically, much like the apparent defense of Blackwater and Halliburton that was made. 1. There was no defense of Blackwater or Halliburton. Contracting for both companies that made them both money was done under USG rules, including the Buy America provisions. Even if a South African or British company had tried for a contract, they almost certainly could not have won it. In summation, this is not comparable at all to POTUS lobbying another country to buy items from a US company. 2. Reagan fired air traffic controllers who struck. This has no relevance, once again, to anything else, especially anything international (air traffic controllers were not competing against foreign labor). 3. The multinational issue is a red herring. Boeing is a multinational corporation, yet any aircraft deal matters a whole heck of a lot to the US economy. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 4, 2009 16:16:17 GMT -5
As to #1, we can never know in some cases whether a foreign corporation could have won since many contracts were awarded on a no-bid basis. That creation of a restricted bid market affects the international economy, even if only indirectly and slightly. This is part of the reason why our government has no trouble prosecuting or investigating predominantly foreign corporations with alleged antitrust issues that have an effect on our domestic market. In any event, the contracts are at least influenced by Iraqi law/governance. Indeed, the Iraqi government refused to renew Blackwater's license for work performed abroad based on a power-sharing arrangement. They now have less money because of the Iraqi government and it alone. The fact that these contracts were made under US laws is not surprising because Iraq was not sovereign at the time that many of them were consummated (and the contracts were designed to re-construct the country and provide security, both fundamental to statehood and sovereignty), so I am not sure your test is decisive. Apart from that, Obama did not lobby another country, but, rather, the IOC, of which the United States has members. As such, it cannot be said that the lobbying was exclusively international.
As to #2, the argument misses the point. There was at least some cost/effect on international passengers or non-US citizens traveling within the US on domestic flights who presumably bore some of the burden of the cost of the replacements. One could even argue that the labor markets are not black boxes.
Your point on #3 is silly if Boeing is meant as a comparison to Chicago having the Olympics. Surely the Olympics does not matter a whole heck of a lot to the US economy, and none of the evidence presented here suggested that it did. Most focused on effects on a city or, at most, state.
* * * * *
There is a seeming lack of coherence in excluding some of these data points from this discussion, as is bound to happen in any line drawing exercise, especially when the question at hand was whether presidents ever broker business deals - or something that was similarly general.
How it should matter that some deals were purportedly domestic and others purportedly "international" based on some line-drawing exercise is anyone's guess, and I am not sure the case has been made for such a distinction when it could be pandering or an inappropriate intervention all the same. Consider that it is highly unlikely that Chicago would award bids to firms from Europe for construction projects, but in the Halliburton/Blackwater analysis, this component appears to carry weight to determine that Halliburton and Blackwater are domestic. The test seems to have the gloss of politics read onto it.
* * * * *
All of this is not to say that I supported Obama's decision. I was lukewarm on it.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 5, 2009 12:41:07 GMT -5
I don't know what we're all arguing about. We all know there's only one reason that Chicago didn't get the Olympics.... ...George W. Bush, of course. (Ha! You thought I was going to make the "The IOC is racist!" joke, didn't you?) Bobby Rush said so. So did Roland Burris. And Jessie Jackson. And Jan Shakowski. I mean, isn't it obvious to everyone?? I'm pretty sure these people would blame George Bush if they got a hangnail. But enough about that! I'm hijacking this thread....because I'm bored.  Here is your latest Hitler "Downfall" video, this one based on the Chicago Olympic bid: And here is an interesting NYT piece on the Hitler Downfall video fad: www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26wwln-medium-t.html?_r=1So, which is your favorite Hitler video? I think I have to go with the one with Dallas Cowboys losing to the Giants. It's pretty freaking hilarious (and it has the advantage of being one of the first ones I saw, so it hadn't gotten overdone for me yet). |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 5, 2009 13:48:54 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 5, 2009 15:07:52 GMT -5
Paul Krugman is so intellectually dishonest in this piece on so many levels, he's not even worth discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 5, 2009 15:21:22 GMT -5
Paul Krugman is so intellectually dishonest in this piece on so many levels, he's not even worth discussing. You know what else isn't even worth discussing? THE EditedING OLYMPIC BID. This is an absolutely ludicrous topic to drag on for this long. The President tried to play a role in getting Olympics in his former city. It lost. Oh well. This is so obviously the most insignificant piece of news to garner this much attention since Kanye West was mean to a blond girl. Could Obama have spent his time doing something more useful? Sure. So could GWB when he was off in Crawford clearing brush for weeks at a time. And so could Clinton when he was getting a BJ from a pudgy girl. And so could Reagan when he was off forgetting who was in his cabinet. And so could . . . . Do I need to continue? Not everything every President does is a great use of his time. I didn't love the Chicago bid. It seemed needless to me. But let's not act like this is even the slightest bit important in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 5, 2009 15:42:29 GMT -5
Paul Krugman is so intellectually dishonest in this piece on so many levels, he's not even worth discussing. I generally agree, but I am not sure the underlying point cannot be made forcefully. Joe Scarborough said recently that the GOP went off the deep end as to the Chicago bid. This kind of comment from a fairly reliable conservative speaks to an undercurrent that has steadily developed since what could reasonably be assumed were high ranking staffers and Republican insiders interrupted McCain's concession speech. If MoveOn was involved in this kind of stuff, we know what the result would have been. That Krugman's opinion column appears in a newspaper of the New York Times's stature, like it or not, should be concerning to the rank and file.* There's also a tendency in any event to discuss things on here that do not merit serious attention if they support a Republican viewpoint (see Drudge, Matt). *And I don't mean from a journalistic point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 5, 2009 19:05:35 GMT -5
Is it beneath the Presidency to try to broker international deals for US Companies? Just curious what people think, because it happens all the time, and has a real impact on US jobs as well. Here, President Bush and the Treasury Department helped to broker a deal between a state-owned entity and a UK company that operated ports in the US and had a US subsidiary. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11474440/ |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 5, 2009 19:13:19 GMT -5
There's also a tendency in any event to discuss things on here that do not merit serious attention if they support a Republican viewpoint (see Drudge, Matt). That's because at the moment, the Republican viewpoint is intellectually bankrupt. The same way that the Democrats were pathetic in 2002–2003—with no core beliefs or actual principles to stand on; just defining themselves as being NOT BUSH—the Republicans now are just anti-anything-Obama. I guess this is all sort of cyclical, but it really is frustrating to watch the party that is out of power just behave like a 6 year old having a hissy fit over every single minor step taken by the party in power, regardless of whether that step is good, bad, or totally insignificant (LIKE THE EditedING OLYMPIC BID—God, this is the most insignificant thing, seriously). |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 5, 2009 22:19:15 GMT -5
I agree. The Olympic bid is a pretty insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things.
Hardly worthy of a personal plea by the President even.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Oct 6, 2009 6:39:03 GMT -5
There's also a tendency in any event to discuss things on here that do not merit serious attention if they support a Republican viewpoint (see Drudge, Matt). That's because at the moment, the Republican viewpoint is intellectually bankrupt. The same way that the Democrats were pathetic in 2002–2003—with no core beliefs or actual principles to stand on; just defining themselves as being NOT BUSH—the Republicans now are just anti-anything-Obama. I guess this is all sort of cyclical, but it really is frustrating to watch the party that is out of power just behave like a 6 year old having a hissy fit over every single minor step taken by the party in power, regardless of whether that step is good, bad, or totally insignificant (LIKE THE EditedING OLYMPIC BID—God, this is the most insignificant thing, seriously). With that said, the Republicans are sort of hosed - they control neither the White House nor the House or Senate. If they were to develop a health care bill, it would essentially gather dust. Not defending them, but the Republicans are better acting as the loyal opposition, attacking foolish Democratic proposals and joining with the Democrats on good pieces of legislation. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 6, 2009 7:33:18 GMT -5
Not defending them, but the Republicans are better acting as the loyal opposition, attacking foolish Democratic proposals and joining with the Democrats on good pieces of legislation. Too bad that's not what they're doing. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 6, 2009 7:39:43 GMT -5
I agree. The Olympic bid is a pretty insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things. Hardly worthy of a personal plea by the President even. OK, but as I said before, neither was brush-clearing in Crawford for months at a time, or BJs in the oval office, or all sorts of other things that Presidents do that would not be considered "optimal" uses of time. Yeah, Obama wasted some time on a really needless venture. It failed. This doesn't deserve to be a news story. |
|
