I have to confess that Barack Obama is a real enigma to me. Try as I may I just can’t quite figure the guy out.
My first exposure to the man was his appearance at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention when he mesmerized the party with his Keynote Speech. Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit that was one fine oratorical performance. I felt then that he was presidential material and the brilliance of his charisma was almost blinding.
I was not the least bit surprised when he announced that he was running for president. I thought he demonstrated a keen sense of history by announcing his candidacy on the steps of the Old Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois, and carried over the theme of Lincoln’s influence throughout the campaign. However, as his run progressed and the histrionics of his speeches became more grandiose, rather than perceiving him as an inspired man, I came to see him for what should have been apparent from the outset. You don’t play in the ballpark of national politics without being very skilled in the art and science of politics. I am now more inclined to think everything he does stems from a strategic design as to what he perceives to be good politics and what is good for his personal ambitions.
He promised us change, when and if he came to Washington. Admittedly I am a simple man. But, to me, change implies new faces and new thinking on the national political scene. However, what we got was a massive resurrection of the Clinton Administration and the cronies who go with it. We got the same faces and the same loyalties we had with Billy Boy. From my perspective, that sure as hell isn’t change. It is simply more of the same repackaged, and I don’t think that is what the electorate wanted or expected.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that Bill Clinton was the sitting President with a Republican Congress when the financial industries were almost totally deregulated under the evil inspiration of Phil Gramm and the Senate Banking Committee. Bill Clinton could have, and should have, vetoed the legislation rather than signing it into law. Robert Rubin, as Secretary of the Treasury should have vehemently opposed it. That did not happen. So, try as the Obama Administration may, to hang total responsibility for the financial meltdown around the neck of George W. Bush, let us remember who opened the flood gates on this disaster.
I find it all rather interesting that, since leaving office, Bill Clinton has pocketed well over 100 million dollars from “speaking” engagements. God only knows, how much has found its way into the coffers of his foundation from the financial industries that he was instrumental in deregulating. Further, Chelsea finished college and promptly joined one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street. Robert Rubin left the Clinton Administration to become CEO of one of the largest investment houses on Wall Street, with a very lucrative salary and bonus package. Is all of this coincidence that befell a few innocent bystanders? I think not. Let’s fix responsibility where it belongs. Bill Clinton had more of the characteristics of a liberal Republican than he ever did those of a centrist Democrat.
I am willing to concede, at this juncture, that Barack Obama seems to be a man of honor, as politicians go. He would have to get up early in the morning to get ahead of the Clintons, whose ideology I regard more as amoral than I do as matters of principle. Only after a lot of backdoor “negotiating” did Hillary agree to accept the nomination for Secretary of State and, you can be sure, with a lot of input from Billy Boy. However, I find it rather interesting that only yesterday did I notice a television journalists’ observation that, as of now, Hillary Clinton is the most powerful woman in the world. If that is indeed the case, how could any rational mind believe that she was first offered the position of Vice President? Anyone who knows anything about Hillary Clinton should not be the least bit surprised that she would much prefer the power of the Secretary of State than the ceremonial role of Vice President. Nice try, Mr. President.
Now, permit me to focus on the financial debacle staring us in the face. Despite attempts to convince us that Obama has surrounded himself with some of the finest financial and economic brains in the country, I am more inclined to think he suffers from the “old boys’ myopia.” Instead, we are stuck with retreads from the Clinton Administration who seem more inclined to play footsie with the rogues on Wall Street than to hold them accountable for their dastardly deeds of the last eight years. We have Larry Summers, who appears more like a bird drunk on overly ripe pyracantha berries than one of the more respected economists on the national scene. He is aligned with Tim Geithner who can’t even do his own income tax returns accurately, yet we are supposed to defer to him as one of the greatest financial minds in the business.
Obama has summarily dismissed a significant faction of economists who appears to be much more capable of “thinking out of the box,” than those he has gathered around him for advice and counsel. Some of the more notable ones are Jim Cramer on CNN, Joseph E. Stigler (Nobel Laureate), Paul Krugman (Nobel Laureate) and James K. Galbraith, Ph.D., School of Economics at the University of Texas, Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University, all of whom appear to be persona non grata at the White House. One who should not be overlooked is Professor Robert Reich at the University of California, Berkeley who served on President Obama‘s Transition Team but who seems to have been relegated to second string these days. All of these people are, essentially, saying that Obama is not doing enough to address the serious flaws inherent in the banking and investment houses, nor is he doing what needs to be done with the urgency and haste required. I don’t hear any of them advocating outright nationalizing of the banking industry. Rather, I hear them saying the government must take them over, clean up the mess they have created, and then sell them back to private investors under new management. In the meantime, the rogues who have done such an abysmal job of “managing” those houses and the investors who profited so handsomely from their shenanigans will take the hit that rightfully belongs to them, instead of the taxpayers.
I raise the question, is President Obama all that naïve, or is he taking care of his cronies who carry on their foul deeds in the canyons of New York City? Is he a dedicated statesman or a very calculating and skilled politician? If it is the latter, this is neither the time nor the place for paying back political favors.
Now, let me focus on a subject near and dear to my heart --- health care. The President has very skillfully avoided any national discourse on the merits of a single-payer healthcare system, and has focused almost entirely on his plan to work with insurance companies on a national health plan, despite national polls that show more than 60 percent of Americans favor the former. The preference for a single-payer system is underscored by some of the best minds and organizations in the country, one of the most prominent being the California Nurses Association. Who are the ones likely to benefit the most from Obama’s plan? I smell a rat.
Healthcare costs are the greatest single financial burden on businesses in this country, and the single largest impediment in their inability to fairly compete in the international marketplace. Further, the cost of providing healthcare has impoverished and deprived more citizens of access to healthcare in this country than any other industrial nation in the world. Why have costs escalated at such an astonishing rate? Principally because of the effective lobbying and unbridled greed of insurance companies, drug companies, organized medicine and overly zealous entrepreneurial efforts by hospital management companies. Their success at milking the golden cow in Washington, D.C. almost ranks right up there with Wall Street. Computerized medical records and working with insurance companies isn’t going to do the trick, no matter how much we get of the President’s finely tuned oratory and his ability to summarily dismiss the voices of real dissent. Experience on the world scene clearly demonstrates that a single-payer system will beat anything Obama is proposing, hands down. As a point of comparison, let us be mindful that the President is still stumping for “clean coal,” despite the legions of scientists and environmentalist who have labeled clean coal as nothing more than one grand oxymoron peddled by the coal industry! Where have you been on this one, Mr. President?
You, Mr. Obama, were elected to the Presidency of this great country because an overwhelming majority of Americans genuinely believe you will effect the changes necessary to meet the needs of those who are truly suffering because of the naïve philosophies and blatant corruption of previous administrations. These are tough times and not one when we should be “sampling” a lot of unproven alternatives. We need honest, bold, firm and inspired leadership rather than a holding of hands in a pathetic attempt to reach consensus on all issues. Time is of the essence.
Humility is one of the greatest of all human attributes. The time has come to back off from riding the coattails of Abraham Lincoln, the staged histrionics on the public stage and belaboring bipartisanship. You, Mr. President, need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask, “Who am I, really?” When you give your first State of the Union Address next January, we don’t need to see you coming down Pennsylvania Avenue in a golden chariot, pulled by six white horses. We don’t need to see you enter the chambers of the House of Representatives adorned in a white toga with a wreath of laurel on your head. Rather, we need to see, and indeed identify with, a strong and determined president who has the admiration and respect of every one in this country and around the world. We must know in our hearts you are one of us, with all the ideals, courage, honesty and integrity we all cherish and so desperately need, but which so few of us have. That is the ideal and the beacon of hope we most need.
The vast majority of us genuinely want to believe in you, Mr. President. You have captured our hearts. Don’t let us down. We may never get a second shot at this one.
All the best.
Cowboy Bob
March 5, 2009
My first exposure to the man was his appearance at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention when he mesmerized the party with his Keynote Speech. Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit that was one fine oratorical performance. I felt then that he was presidential material and the brilliance of his charisma was almost blinding.
I was not the least bit surprised when he announced that he was running for president. I thought he demonstrated a keen sense of history by announcing his candidacy on the steps of the Old Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois, and carried over the theme of Lincoln’s influence throughout the campaign. However, as his run progressed and the histrionics of his speeches became more grandiose, rather than perceiving him as an inspired man, I came to see him for what should have been apparent from the outset. You don’t play in the ballpark of national politics without being very skilled in the art and science of politics. I am now more inclined to think everything he does stems from a strategic design as to what he perceives to be good politics and what is good for his personal ambitions.
He promised us change, when and if he came to Washington. Admittedly I am a simple man. But, to me, change implies new faces and new thinking on the national political scene. However, what we got was a massive resurrection of the Clinton Administration and the cronies who go with it. We got the same faces and the same loyalties we had with Billy Boy. From my perspective, that sure as hell isn’t change. It is simply more of the same repackaged, and I don’t think that is what the electorate wanted or expected.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that Bill Clinton was the sitting President with a Republican Congress when the financial industries were almost totally deregulated under the evil inspiration of Phil Gramm and the Senate Banking Committee. Bill Clinton could have, and should have, vetoed the legislation rather than signing it into law. Robert Rubin, as Secretary of the Treasury should have vehemently opposed it. That did not happen. So, try as the Obama Administration may, to hang total responsibility for the financial meltdown around the neck of George W. Bush, let us remember who opened the flood gates on this disaster.
I find it all rather interesting that, since leaving office, Bill Clinton has pocketed well over 100 million dollars from “speaking” engagements. God only knows, how much has found its way into the coffers of his foundation from the financial industries that he was instrumental in deregulating. Further, Chelsea finished college and promptly joined one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street. Robert Rubin left the Clinton Administration to become CEO of one of the largest investment houses on Wall Street, with a very lucrative salary and bonus package. Is all of this coincidence that befell a few innocent bystanders? I think not. Let’s fix responsibility where it belongs. Bill Clinton had more of the characteristics of a liberal Republican than he ever did those of a centrist Democrat.
I am willing to concede, at this juncture, that Barack Obama seems to be a man of honor, as politicians go. He would have to get up early in the morning to get ahead of the Clintons, whose ideology I regard more as amoral than I do as matters of principle. Only after a lot of backdoor “negotiating” did Hillary agree to accept the nomination for Secretary of State and, you can be sure, with a lot of input from Billy Boy. However, I find it rather interesting that only yesterday did I notice a television journalists’ observation that, as of now, Hillary Clinton is the most powerful woman in the world. If that is indeed the case, how could any rational mind believe that she was first offered the position of Vice President? Anyone who knows anything about Hillary Clinton should not be the least bit surprised that she would much prefer the power of the Secretary of State than the ceremonial role of Vice President. Nice try, Mr. President.
Now, permit me to focus on the financial debacle staring us in the face. Despite attempts to convince us that Obama has surrounded himself with some of the finest financial and economic brains in the country, I am more inclined to think he suffers from the “old boys’ myopia.” Instead, we are stuck with retreads from the Clinton Administration who seem more inclined to play footsie with the rogues on Wall Street than to hold them accountable for their dastardly deeds of the last eight years. We have Larry Summers, who appears more like a bird drunk on overly ripe pyracantha berries than one of the more respected economists on the national scene. He is aligned with Tim Geithner who can’t even do his own income tax returns accurately, yet we are supposed to defer to him as one of the greatest financial minds in the business.
Obama has summarily dismissed a significant faction of economists who appears to be much more capable of “thinking out of the box,” than those he has gathered around him for advice and counsel. Some of the more notable ones are Jim Cramer on CNN, Joseph E. Stigler (Nobel Laureate), Paul Krugman (Nobel Laureate) and James K. Galbraith, Ph.D., School of Economics at the University of Texas, Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University, all of whom appear to be persona non grata at the White House. One who should not be overlooked is Professor Robert Reich at the University of California, Berkeley who served on President Obama‘s Transition Team but who seems to have been relegated to second string these days. All of these people are, essentially, saying that Obama is not doing enough to address the serious flaws inherent in the banking and investment houses, nor is he doing what needs to be done with the urgency and haste required. I don’t hear any of them advocating outright nationalizing of the banking industry. Rather, I hear them saying the government must take them over, clean up the mess they have created, and then sell them back to private investors under new management. In the meantime, the rogues who have done such an abysmal job of “managing” those houses and the investors who profited so handsomely from their shenanigans will take the hit that rightfully belongs to them, instead of the taxpayers.
I raise the question, is President Obama all that naïve, or is he taking care of his cronies who carry on their foul deeds in the canyons of New York City? Is he a dedicated statesman or a very calculating and skilled politician? If it is the latter, this is neither the time nor the place for paying back political favors.
Now, let me focus on a subject near and dear to my heart --- health care. The President has very skillfully avoided any national discourse on the merits of a single-payer healthcare system, and has focused almost entirely on his plan to work with insurance companies on a national health plan, despite national polls that show more than 60 percent of Americans favor the former. The preference for a single-payer system is underscored by some of the best minds and organizations in the country, one of the most prominent being the California Nurses Association. Who are the ones likely to benefit the most from Obama’s plan? I smell a rat.
Healthcare costs are the greatest single financial burden on businesses in this country, and the single largest impediment in their inability to fairly compete in the international marketplace. Further, the cost of providing healthcare has impoverished and deprived more citizens of access to healthcare in this country than any other industrial nation in the world. Why have costs escalated at such an astonishing rate? Principally because of the effective lobbying and unbridled greed of insurance companies, drug companies, organized medicine and overly zealous entrepreneurial efforts by hospital management companies. Their success at milking the golden cow in Washington, D.C. almost ranks right up there with Wall Street. Computerized medical records and working with insurance companies isn’t going to do the trick, no matter how much we get of the President’s finely tuned oratory and his ability to summarily dismiss the voices of real dissent. Experience on the world scene clearly demonstrates that a single-payer system will beat anything Obama is proposing, hands down. As a point of comparison, let us be mindful that the President is still stumping for “clean coal,” despite the legions of scientists and environmentalist who have labeled clean coal as nothing more than one grand oxymoron peddled by the coal industry! Where have you been on this one, Mr. President?
You, Mr. Obama, were elected to the Presidency of this great country because an overwhelming majority of Americans genuinely believe you will effect the changes necessary to meet the needs of those who are truly suffering because of the naïve philosophies and blatant corruption of previous administrations. These are tough times and not one when we should be “sampling” a lot of unproven alternatives. We need honest, bold, firm and inspired leadership rather than a holding of hands in a pathetic attempt to reach consensus on all issues. Time is of the essence.
Humility is one of the greatest of all human attributes. The time has come to back off from riding the coattails of Abraham Lincoln, the staged histrionics on the public stage and belaboring bipartisanship. You, Mr. President, need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask, “Who am I, really?” When you give your first State of the Union Address next January, we don’t need to see you coming down Pennsylvania Avenue in a golden chariot, pulled by six white horses. We don’t need to see you enter the chambers of the House of Representatives adorned in a white toga with a wreath of laurel on your head. Rather, we need to see, and indeed identify with, a strong and determined president who has the admiration and respect of every one in this country and around the world. We must know in our hearts you are one of us, with all the ideals, courage, honesty and integrity we all cherish and so desperately need, but which so few of us have. That is the ideal and the beacon of hope we most need.
The vast majority of us genuinely want to believe in you, Mr. President. You have captured our hearts. Don’t let us down. We may never get a second shot at this one.
All the best.
Cowboy Bob
March 5, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment