Have you noticed that neither President Obama’s supporters nor his detractors can bring themselves to take what he says at face value? They either believe he’s kidding (his supporters) or he’s lying (his detractors or maybe even his supporters for all I know). I have never thought the president was kidding. I thought it was possible he could be persuaded, for example on Afghanistan, but I’m beginning to doubt that as well.
Just for a moment assume that you can take what the president says at face value. What does that mean for
- the war in Afghanistan
- the economy
- the budget
- the prospects for war with Iran
Exhibit A for your proposition would be same-sex marriage. As President, Obama says he maintains the same position that he had as a candidate, which is that he opposes it. Everyone, detractors and supporters alike, seems to universally agree that he really does support it but doesn’t want to say that until after the election.
What does that tell you>?
That its not an important issue, and he has at least some filtering ability that his adversaries lack.
A good example.
Another would be Afghanistan. Candidate Obama said he thought that GWB had erred in not putting enough resources into Afghanistan. President Obama put more resources into Afghanistan. President Obama has said he would begin drawing down forces in Afghanistan, I think, this year. I think he will. The question is how many.
Both the president’s supporters and detractors think he’s going to pull all of the troops out by 2014. I think he really believes that the Afghan forces can be brought along to the point where they can take the lead in combat roles (in something other than geological time). I doubt it but I think he’s right on schedule.
The president has also said that he thinks that much of unemployment is structural (I’m paraphrasing). To my eye he appears to be proceeding as though that were the case.
Good goddamn. Everyone knew that the USSR shot their wad in Afghanistan. That was clear in 1989.
Guess I am not following you. Sounds like he has been consistent on Afghanistan. On Iran, he has always said all options are on the table and he would prefer sanctions.The message I get on the budget is that there should be a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, mostly on the wealthy. What am I missing?
Steve
I’m saying that, yes, what he has done has consistent with what he said he would do. But those who support him and those who oppose him continue to think otherwise.
So, for example, on stimulus package there were any number of Obama supporters who said that the president wanted a larger bill. And opponents who said much the same thing. The evidence that’s come out does not support that.
The president said he would not raise taxes on the middle class. I think he’s going to stick to that which means that he won’t allow the “Bush tax cuts” to expire in their entirety, as some are saying.
So, what you’re missing is that the problem isn’t with the president. It’s with both his supporters and his opponents who are kidding themselves into believing that the president is somebody he isn’t. As Michael said in comments to another post “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
Sorry, but I’ve said from the start that Mr. Obama means what he says. He did exactly what he said he’d do on Iraq, Afghanistan, reaching out to the GOP, gay marriage, terrorism, etc…
He’s a moderate Democrat, always was. He governs like a moderate Republican. There’s very little he’s done that has surprised me. (And that sometimes frustrates me.) What has surprised me is how clueless the right has been in their “analysis” of him. He’s not the radical hare, he’s the moderate tortoise.
The interesting question about Obama is whether his style — sort of the polar opposite of GW Bush — is effective, or whether we’d have done better with a bit more drama. I tend to think you sometimes need to bring the crazy, and Obama doesn’t seem to have any.
As for what it means on Iran, I think it means he’ll let the sanctions run. He’ll let the Iranians work on gaining the potential for a nuke, but if he’s convinced they’re actually moving to fabricating a nuke he’ll attack.
One very interesting thing to remember: it wasn’t Mr. Bush who sold the Israelis bunker busting bombs, it was Obama. He’s been building potential against Iran from the start.
The bits of the AIPAC speech I heard were the first strident notes of sabre-rattling I’ve heard. Whether or not he means what he says, he’s now staked some chips on it.
Ok, then I have to agree with you Dave. His supporters thought they were getting someone who would make liberal dreams come true. Not the case, though he did pass health care reform. Maybe we will see differently if he is re-elected. Reagan’s big tax reform was in 1986 IIRC.
Steve
“He’s a moderate Democrat, always was. He governs like a moderate Republican.”
You mean he not a comunisss?
Like Michael, I’ve always taken Obama at his word, and as a result I haven’t been as disappointed with him as many other liberals I know (of course, my expectations were also never that high). I saw him as a cautious, Clintonite type technocrat, and that’s basically exactly how he’s governed. While I’d definitely prefer someone more courageous and visionary, such an option has yet to materialize.
He’s gone against his word a few times – most regrettably in my opinion on the issues surrounding indefinite detention and the war on terror. But even there I never had my hopes up – as all civil libertarians know, the chances of a president freely giving up powers aggregated by his predecessors is close to nil. Like most politicians, he’s also promised far more than he could deliver most of the time.
My take on that is pretty much what it’s been for the last ten years. The Bush Administration didn’t do what it did in that regard out of malice. They did what they did because they had no good alternatives and didn’t know what else to do. President Obama may have run against the Bush Administrations policies in that area but he doesn’t know what else to do, either.
To be honest I think that Obama is more principled than Clinton.
They did what they did because they had no good alternatives and didn’t know what else to do.
I think that’s basically true, especially of Bush himself. But it’s also fairly well documented that a bunch of his cabinet members were very ambitious regarding the scope of executive powers, and used the opportunity to take them. And Congress rolled right on over, because nowadays Congress likes nothing better than abrogating as much of its responsibility as possible, especially over matters of war and peace.
And yes, at least on a personal level Obama seems to be more principled than Clinton. A low bar, admittedly.
My views of Clinton were heavily informed by the editorials in the Little Rock Democrat-Gazette when he became the Democratic candidate for president. Short version: we shouldn’t have been surprised.