........ Mr. President. Who are you, really, and what do you stand for? After having watched your meteoric rise throughout the campaign and having shed tears of joy when you were elected, I now find myself totally bewildered as to who and what the real Barack Obama is. What do you represent? Where on the political spectrum are you?
I thought it was a bit imperious as I watched the series of your speeches that started with your run for the presidency on the steps of the Old Capital Building in Springfield, and culminating with your victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park. I first wrote them off as building momentum for the finish line. Then, I began to wonder if this guy believes his own press. Is he a man of the people or a front for the established political and economic influentials inside the Beltway? I am still uneasy and my unease is growing.
The appointments to your administration have raised even more questions and have deepened my doubts. It is almost as if the vestigial remnants of the Clinton Administration were freeze dried in 2000 only to be reconstituted in 2009. That scares me. Why do the Clintons seem to have a hold on positions of prominence in your administration? Where are all those people who were going to come riding into Washington on your coat tails, who think outside the box and who were going to help you bring about the sweeping changes you so eloquently promised over the preceding two years? I can’t put my finger on one.
I will admit to being a simple man. However, I come from the school that believes certain character traits are absolute, not situational or transitory. It is kind of like the old adage to the effect that a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either she is or she isn‘t. You are either a person of character or you are not. You are either squeaky clean or you are not. There are no shades of gray. I see several examples of people brought into your administration who have backgrounds that are cause for pause by those of us in the hinterlands and who are on the receiving end of what is wrought by the powers in Washington. Character and integrity that are solid foster confidence; those that are transitory do not. For example:
1. Bill Clinton signed into law the legislation that removed controls from the
Financial industries. He, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers aided and abetted Phil Gramm in letting the wild horses out of the corral. Robert Rubin, in particular, stands out as an opportunistic rogue. He left his post as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury for a lucrative job as CEO of Lehman Brothers, only to leave following the recent economic meltdown for a better deal at another Wall Street firm. It only stands to reason that, fortunately, he was only an advisor to you on your transition team. However, Larry Summers followed Rubin as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and, voila, he is now your Chief Economic Advisor. How can you reconcile those disparities with the integrity your administration has led us to believe you hold inviolate?
2. Tom Daschle went down in flames, as he should have. There was nothing subtle as to how he capitalized on his years in the United States Senate after he was voted out. His role as a “consultant” was much more egregious than his failure to pay taxes, and would clearly have placed him in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as Secretary of Health & Human Services. His wife is an even more glaring example of how connections in Washington can be turned into pure gold.
3. Then there is the rather glaring example of Timothy Geithner, another
refugee from the Clinton Administration. He managed to squeak through despite his “mistake” in not paying his taxes. Another example of being a little bit pregnant, no doubt. There are still unanswered questions as to his relationship to Wall Street while he was head of the Fed in New York.
4. Another example of how fluid your standards seem to be is making an exception for a major lobbyist at Raytheon, a huge defense contractor, to serve in a position of prominence in the Defense Department. Are you not familiar with Dwight Eisenhower’s dire predictions of the dangers from a growing military-industrial complex? If there was ever a government agency that hemorrhages money, the Pentagon is surely at the top of the heap.
The foregoing are but a few examples of why I am inclined to believe your character may well be more a matter of ideals for public consumption, than they are principles which you hold to be inviolate. You have led us to believe there is only one standard of justice for all Americans. Yet, we see evidence that the old double standard that differentiates Washington from the rest of us is still very much alive and well. How can this be?
Why are we being led to believe that some of the exceptions in appointments to your cabinet and staff positions are because there are no others who are as well qualified? If anything is universally true, it is that there is no such thing as an indispensable man. Surely, you don’t believe otherwise.
Are you naïve or just another politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth, and whose principles are as fluid as the waters of the Potomac? Do you genuinely believe in change and the urgent need to fix the system, or do you, also, play to the entrenched interests and power structure so firmly ingrained in the Washington Establishment, New York Banking Houses and the Eastern Elite, all the while assuaging the heartland of American that any doubts it may be having about you have no foundation in fact. You profess to be one of them with their best interests at heart. On the other hand, credibility is when a person’s words are consistent with his deeds. I don’t see evidence to necessarily support that.
I genuinely commend you for your position on the bi-partisan effort to reach out to the Republicans and involve them in your efforts to turn the current economic catastrophe around. By meeting with them on Capital Hill, inviting them to the White House, etc. further demonstrate to me your sincerity in that regard. What have you gotten in return? A unified front against you and the Democratic majority in Congress on your efforts to attach any sense of urgency to your programs on behalf of the American people. They have failed to draft a comprehensive alternative plan that would provide some semblance of critical and creative thought. Rather, they nit-pick what is on the table, citing the old tired latitudes and platitudes as the end all for curing the nation’s ills -- tax cuts and an unencumbered free market. Where in God’s name have they been for the last 30 years?
You have performed within the context of the classic definition of an “appeaser.” You kept feeding the alligators hoping they would eat you last. As a result, you forfeited a significant part of your personal power and that of the office you hold. It will take some doing to get it back.
I think it is time for the Democrats to unite and play hardball. They need to understand that extending the presidential hand of kindness is not synonymous with weakness. Let them filibuster so the American public can see how little they have to offer, when all they are doing is obstructing and delaying the urgent relief needed for the nation, naively hoping it will enhance their chances for re-election in 2010. They don’t deserve compromise and assuaging in order to preserve what little image they still have, and to help them burnish their reputations for 2010. Better to leave that to Sarah Palin.
I carry one big disappointment specific to you, Mr. President. Progressives are a large part of the base of support that got you elected to the presidency. I expected to see that fact reflected in your administration, which is instead painfully absent. I think you owe us more. Although the ideals of Paul Wellstone may have long ago faded into the vastness of time, his was a vision that extended far into the future and deserves to be a part of the national discourse on what this country needs in order to thrive and prosper, now and into the future. I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that the advice and counsel from that school has been sought as part of your efforts at inclusiveness. If Honest Abe were at the helm, I rather imagine that school of thought would be prominent among those he would count among his collection of adversaries.
Progressives are, by nature, idealists. They have put a lot of stock in you. However, that idealism will only last so long and it will begin to evolve into cynicism. When that happens, those among them who are now prominent among your staunchest supporters will become your harshest critics. There are already indications that it may well have started.
Whether it is by choice or out of necessity, you appear to be a true centrist. Perhaps that is the only viable position most likely to survive within the insulated bubble of Washington, D.C. Why? Perhaps it is just a reflection of the tendency by those who go to the polls, crying for dramatic change, but all too willing to accept a state of equilibrium pegged at the lowest level of mediocrity. If that is indeed the case, we are all the poorer for it.
On second thought, is it not the mark of a true leader to raise the level of awareness among the common folks as to what is worth fighting for and is in their best interests and, hence, those of the nation? This is not a time for consensus building, but a time for bold and decisive leadership. Let that be the foundation upon which we build our future.
Cowboy Bob
February 13, 2009
I thought it was a bit imperious as I watched the series of your speeches that started with your run for the presidency on the steps of the Old Capital Building in Springfield, and culminating with your victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park. I first wrote them off as building momentum for the finish line. Then, I began to wonder if this guy believes his own press. Is he a man of the people or a front for the established political and economic influentials inside the Beltway? I am still uneasy and my unease is growing.
The appointments to your administration have raised even more questions and have deepened my doubts. It is almost as if the vestigial remnants of the Clinton Administration were freeze dried in 2000 only to be reconstituted in 2009. That scares me. Why do the Clintons seem to have a hold on positions of prominence in your administration? Where are all those people who were going to come riding into Washington on your coat tails, who think outside the box and who were going to help you bring about the sweeping changes you so eloquently promised over the preceding two years? I can’t put my finger on one.
I will admit to being a simple man. However, I come from the school that believes certain character traits are absolute, not situational or transitory. It is kind of like the old adage to the effect that a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either she is or she isn‘t. You are either a person of character or you are not. You are either squeaky clean or you are not. There are no shades of gray. I see several examples of people brought into your administration who have backgrounds that are cause for pause by those of us in the hinterlands and who are on the receiving end of what is wrought by the powers in Washington. Character and integrity that are solid foster confidence; those that are transitory do not. For example:
1. Bill Clinton signed into law the legislation that removed controls from the
Financial industries. He, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers aided and abetted Phil Gramm in letting the wild horses out of the corral. Robert Rubin, in particular, stands out as an opportunistic rogue. He left his post as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury for a lucrative job as CEO of Lehman Brothers, only to leave following the recent economic meltdown for a better deal at another Wall Street firm. It only stands to reason that, fortunately, he was only an advisor to you on your transition team. However, Larry Summers followed Rubin as Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and, voila, he is now your Chief Economic Advisor. How can you reconcile those disparities with the integrity your administration has led us to believe you hold inviolate?
2. Tom Daschle went down in flames, as he should have. There was nothing subtle as to how he capitalized on his years in the United States Senate after he was voted out. His role as a “consultant” was much more egregious than his failure to pay taxes, and would clearly have placed him in a conflict-of-interest position in his role as Secretary of Health & Human Services. His wife is an even more glaring example of how connections in Washington can be turned into pure gold.
3. Then there is the rather glaring example of Timothy Geithner, another
refugee from the Clinton Administration. He managed to squeak through despite his “mistake” in not paying his taxes. Another example of being a little bit pregnant, no doubt. There are still unanswered questions as to his relationship to Wall Street while he was head of the Fed in New York.
4. Another example of how fluid your standards seem to be is making an exception for a major lobbyist at Raytheon, a huge defense contractor, to serve in a position of prominence in the Defense Department. Are you not familiar with Dwight Eisenhower’s dire predictions of the dangers from a growing military-industrial complex? If there was ever a government agency that hemorrhages money, the Pentagon is surely at the top of the heap.
The foregoing are but a few examples of why I am inclined to believe your character may well be more a matter of ideals for public consumption, than they are principles which you hold to be inviolate. You have led us to believe there is only one standard of justice for all Americans. Yet, we see evidence that the old double standard that differentiates Washington from the rest of us is still very much alive and well. How can this be?
Why are we being led to believe that some of the exceptions in appointments to your cabinet and staff positions are because there are no others who are as well qualified? If anything is universally true, it is that there is no such thing as an indispensable man. Surely, you don’t believe otherwise.
Are you naïve or just another politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth, and whose principles are as fluid as the waters of the Potomac? Do you genuinely believe in change and the urgent need to fix the system, or do you, also, play to the entrenched interests and power structure so firmly ingrained in the Washington Establishment, New York Banking Houses and the Eastern Elite, all the while assuaging the heartland of American that any doubts it may be having about you have no foundation in fact. You profess to be one of them with their best interests at heart. On the other hand, credibility is when a person’s words are consistent with his deeds. I don’t see evidence to necessarily support that.
I genuinely commend you for your position on the bi-partisan effort to reach out to the Republicans and involve them in your efforts to turn the current economic catastrophe around. By meeting with them on Capital Hill, inviting them to the White House, etc. further demonstrate to me your sincerity in that regard. What have you gotten in return? A unified front against you and the Democratic majority in Congress on your efforts to attach any sense of urgency to your programs on behalf of the American people. They have failed to draft a comprehensive alternative plan that would provide some semblance of critical and creative thought. Rather, they nit-pick what is on the table, citing the old tired latitudes and platitudes as the end all for curing the nation’s ills -- tax cuts and an unencumbered free market. Where in God’s name have they been for the last 30 years?
You have performed within the context of the classic definition of an “appeaser.” You kept feeding the alligators hoping they would eat you last. As a result, you forfeited a significant part of your personal power and that of the office you hold. It will take some doing to get it back.
I think it is time for the Democrats to unite and play hardball. They need to understand that extending the presidential hand of kindness is not synonymous with weakness. Let them filibuster so the American public can see how little they have to offer, when all they are doing is obstructing and delaying the urgent relief needed for the nation, naively hoping it will enhance their chances for re-election in 2010. They don’t deserve compromise and assuaging in order to preserve what little image they still have, and to help them burnish their reputations for 2010. Better to leave that to Sarah Palin.
I carry one big disappointment specific to you, Mr. President. Progressives are a large part of the base of support that got you elected to the presidency. I expected to see that fact reflected in your administration, which is instead painfully absent. I think you owe us more. Although the ideals of Paul Wellstone may have long ago faded into the vastness of time, his was a vision that extended far into the future and deserves to be a part of the national discourse on what this country needs in order to thrive and prosper, now and into the future. I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that the advice and counsel from that school has been sought as part of your efforts at inclusiveness. If Honest Abe were at the helm, I rather imagine that school of thought would be prominent among those he would count among his collection of adversaries.
Progressives are, by nature, idealists. They have put a lot of stock in you. However, that idealism will only last so long and it will begin to evolve into cynicism. When that happens, those among them who are now prominent among your staunchest supporters will become your harshest critics. There are already indications that it may well have started.
Whether it is by choice or out of necessity, you appear to be a true centrist. Perhaps that is the only viable position most likely to survive within the insulated bubble of Washington, D.C. Why? Perhaps it is just a reflection of the tendency by those who go to the polls, crying for dramatic change, but all too willing to accept a state of equilibrium pegged at the lowest level of mediocrity. If that is indeed the case, we are all the poorer for it.
On second thought, is it not the mark of a true leader to raise the level of awareness among the common folks as to what is worth fighting for and is in their best interests and, hence, those of the nation? This is not a time for consensus building, but a time for bold and decisive leadership. Let that be the foundation upon which we build our future.
Cowboy Bob
February 13, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment