PDA

View Full Version : General Politics How Obama Thinks


Otter
09-10-2010, 05:37 PM
Good Saturday afternoon read:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

The President isn't exactly a socialist. So what's driving his hostility to private enterprise? Look to his roots.

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.

More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?

The oddities go on and on. Obama's Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed's "stress test" was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.

The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing. This does indeed seem unfair--to the rich.

Obama's foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.
Read All Comments

Recently the London Times reported that the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans. This was an eye-opener because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama Administration publicly and appropriately complained. The Times, however, obtained a letter the Obama Administration sent to Scotland a week before the event in which it said that releasing Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland and would be "far preferable" to sending him back to Libya. Scottish officials interpreted this to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi's release were "half-hearted." They released him to his home country, where he lives today as a free man.

One more anomaly: A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America's space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world. Come again? Bolden said he got the word directly from the President. "He wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering." Bolden added that the International Space Station was a model for nasa's future, since it was not just a U.S. operation but included the Russians and the Chinese. Obama's redirection of the agency caused consternation among former astronauts like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, and even among the President's supporters: Most people think of nasa's job as one of landing on the moon and Mars and exploring other faraway destinations. Sure, we are for Islamic self-esteem, but what on earth was Obama up to here?

Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.

These theories aren't wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama's domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse--much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama's own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.

A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King's dream? Or something else?

It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. They believed the nation was a "new order for the ages." A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating "a distinct species of mankind." This is known as American exceptionalism. But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.

Perhaps, then, Obama shares Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. The President has benefited from that dream; he campaigned as a nonracial candidate, and many Americans voted for him because he represents the color-blind ideal. Even so, King's dream is not Obama's: The President never champions the idea of color-blindness or race-neutrality. This inaction is not merely tactical; the race issue simply isn't what drives Obama.

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.
Read All Comments

An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future.

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country's independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

Continues... (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_3.html)

Direckshun
09-11-2010, 09:31 PM
I gotta give some props to nuanced arguments. Don't see too many around here.

I don't exactly agree with the main thrust of the piece, but it's better than 99% of what's posted here.

mikey23545
09-11-2010, 09:33 PM
I resent the implication that Obama thinks and doesn't simply read from the teleprompter.

MadMax
09-11-2010, 09:45 PM
It's simple... He thinks like a monkey..

petegz28
09-11-2010, 11:08 PM
Obama thinks however the tele-prompter tells him to think.

The Mad Crapper
09-12-2010, 07:08 AM
The oddities go on and on.

Indeed, they do.

chiefsnorth
09-12-2010, 07:59 AM
However ayers taught him to?

Amnorix
09-13-2010, 01:21 PM
The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.


The stupiditya round the export-import bank seems neverending.

It's a system designed to give LOANS to foreign corporations so we can more easily export our American-made goods. Usually it results in buying American products, which supports American jobs, and with the loans being repaid, with interest.

They aren't designed to be grants or foreign aid.

Direckshun
09-13-2010, 01:48 PM
To say nothing of the fact that the administration actually did approve offshore drilling off Virginia.

Norman Einstein
09-13-2010, 02:02 PM
How Obama thinks... he doesn't, Soros thinks for him and puts it on the teleprompters.

Jenson71
09-13-2010, 02:12 PM
How many teleprompter jokes can we get from the truly original thinkers on chiefsplanet? Three so far.

Otter
09-13-2010, 02:31 PM
I gotta give some props to nuanced arguments. Don't see too many around here.

I don't exactly agree with the main thrust of the piece, but it's better than 99% of what's posted here.

Assuming you at least partially agree with the article:

1. How can you not believe it's in his best interest to weaken the USA as a superpower through means such as generating uncontrollable debt and weakening it's stronghold as a super power overall?

2. Is this man not more fit to be in the Peace Corp as opposed to commander in chief?

His goals, whether you find them admirable or not is irrelevant. They shouldn't be the goals of the president of the united states. He took an oath to protect this country and see to it's prosperity.

Jenson71
09-13-2010, 02:33 PM
1. How can you not believe it's in his best interest to weaken the USA as a superpower through means such as generating uncontrollable debt and weakening it's stronghold as a super power overall?

Why is that in his best interest?

Otter
09-13-2010, 02:54 PM
Why is that in his best interest?

As a surrogate means of castrating the 'neocolonial machine' he believes America represents while spreading our 'unproportional wealth'.

Norman Einstein
09-13-2010, 03:47 PM
How many teleprompter jokes can we get from the truly original thinkers on chiefsplanet? Three so far.

Too bad it's not a joke in any way though!

BucEyedPea
09-13-2010, 04:00 PM
Cuba to cut one million public sector jobs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11291267)

Cuba has announced radical plans to lay off huge numbers of state employees, to help revive the communist country's struggling economy.

The Cuban labour federation said more than a million workers would lose their jobs - half of them by March next year.

Those laid off will be encouraged to become self-employed or join new private enterprises, on which some of the current restrictions will be eased.

Analysts say it is biggest private sector shift since the 1959 revolution.

Cuba's communist government currently controls almost all aspects of the country's economy and employs about 85% of the official workforce, which is put at 5.1 million people.

"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy," the labour federation said in a statement.

"Job options will be increased and broadened with new forms of non-state employment, among them leasing land, co-operatives, and self-employment, absorbing hundreds of thousands of workers in the coming years."

Jenson71
09-13-2010, 04:00 PM
As a surrogate means of castrating the 'neocolonial machine' he believes America represents while spreading our 'unproportional wealth'.

LMAO. No.

His best interest is obviously to be re-elected in 2012. His best interest is to do the best job the president can be. His best interest is not to destroy America and become the most hated man in Western civilization.

Are you foaming? These posts make you sound like you are an imbalanced moron.

HonestChieffan
09-13-2010, 08:14 PM
LMAO. No.

His best interest is obviously to be re-elected in 2012. His best interest is to do the best job the president can be. His best interest is not to destroy America and become the most hated man in Western civilization.

Are you foaming? These posts make you sound like you are an imbalanced moron.

So, then we are seeing a man engaged in self destructive behavior?

Otter
09-14-2010, 12:05 AM
LMAO. No.

His best interest is obviously to be re-elected in 2012. His best interest is to do the best job the president can be. His best interest is not to destroy America and become the most hated man in Western civilization.

Are you foaming? These posts make you sound like you are an imbalanced moron.

Thanks for the conversation Mad Crapper Jenson.

orange
09-14-2010, 07:12 PM
Newt Is Nuts!
Why is Gingrich pushing Dinesh D'Souza's crazy theory about Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism"?
By David Weigel
Posted Monday, Sept. 13, 2010, at 10:23 PM ET

The release of a new book by Dinesh D'Souza prompts a perennial question: Why do people keep publishing books by Dinesh D'Souza?

There's a simple answer. Newt Gingrich provided it to me and National Review's Robert Costa on Saturday night. After the premiere of his documentary America at Risk, Gingrich mused about the brilliance of D'Souza's Forbes magazine cover story about the "roots of Obama's rage," based on his upcoming book with that title. The roots, according to D'Souza, were in mid-1960s, Marxist-inspired, Kenyan anti-colonialism. Gingrich repeated those words—"Kenyan, anti-colonial"—and called the article "brilliant."

"I'm going to actually get it, post it, and send to people regularly," said Gingrich. "It's the most interesting insight. You guys," he said, nodding at Costa, "might want to do a conference on it, unless AEI does it."

Getting Newt Gingrich to endorse your article is, in the year 2010, a nuclear trigger. Within a few hours, Gingrich was condemned by every Democrat with blogging software. The D'Souza thesis became the latest conservative idea denounced by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman who likes to defuse grenades by jumping on top of them.

And that's the answer to the "Why publish D'Souza?" question. It should be obvious by now that there is literally no conservative argument too "crazy" to be obsessed over by liberals. Every time a new one surfaces, they try to run it out of the mainstream by drawing extra attention to it. In 2008, Obama campaign's strategy was to refuse to comment on rumors or conspiracy talk—until the campaign launched a Web site in June devoted to debunking all of it. In 2010, the Democratic strategy is to freak out, all the time, about everything. It's not going so well, but that's largely because the economy isn't going so well, either.

Still, it's jarring to see D'Souza making the latest attack. His book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, is a mess. His most memorable previous books were messes, too. Every time he publishes a new mess, it gets the full Pastor Jones treatment in the respectable press. That's had basically no effect on his ability to get published or his ability to get onto the stage at conservative conferences. But it is good for liberals. D'Souza was the first modern conservative author to discover—the hard way—that if you want to be a pundit, there is no downside to making a reprehensible argument. The downside comes for the people who may agree with your politics but not your argument.

The start of the D'Souza phenomenon came in 1995, when he published The End of Racism. Written to ride the wave of books and articles that called for white America to get over its racial guilt, it included lines like the "American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well." It was so sloppy and unconvincing that it killed the genre for a few years; it's a 700-page doorstop by a one-time AEI scholar that no one cites today. The next D'Souza implosion came in 2007, with the publication of another book that killed its genre. The Enemy at Home consisted of an argument that the "left" was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That was an irresistible hook for a publisher, especially after the public had turned on the Bush administration and the war on terror. But D'Souza made such a hash out of it that the people who had danced around the left-and-9/11 idea realized how deeply stupid it was. Victor Davis Hanson joined the mob and pointed out, as politely as he could, that D'Souza's enemies list was "nonsensical."

So The Roots of Obama's Rage is D'Souza's third pseudo-academic swing for the fences. In the book, and in the Forbes article that Gingrich plans to spread far and wide, he strikes out. D'Souza's point is that Obama's Dreams From My Father and his father's 1965 report on socialism tell us all we need to know about why his love for America is a little limp, but he pads out the book and the article with a lot of meandering and dross about how he came to this conclusion. As in The End of Racism, he performs a pre-emptive ad hominem rebuttal to critics.

"I'm a native of Mumbai, India," D'Souza writes in the new book, "so I grew up in a different part of the world, as Obama did. I'm nonwhite, as he is. He had a white mom and grew up in an inter-racial family." (In 1995, he wrote: "I feel especially qualified to address the subject of multiculturalism because I am a kind of walking embodiment of it. I was born in Bombay, India in 1961.") This is the literary equivalent of putting on eyeglasses so a bully won't hit you.

Well, the hits are deserved. D'Souza admits to readers that this is his third crack at a Grand Unifying Theory of Obama, after a Hobbesian take he called "Obama's Leviathan" and an argument that "Obama got his big government philosophy from the civil rights era." Only after seeing Obama give a definition of "American exceptionalism" that didn't sound right did D'Souza go back to Obama's books and realize that the president was cribbing his politics from 1960s Marxist and anti-colonial theory.

"This is intellectual terrain I know well," he writes. Obama "demonizes his predecessor and his opponents," according to D'Souza, because he looks to former Kenyan Prime Minister and President Jomo Kenyatta as an inspiration. That creates a mystery about why George W. Bush criticized Bill Clinton or Clinton criticized Bush's father, but never mind: D'Souza's rolling. D'Souza looks at Obama's 2008 campaign and sees "social and cultural whitening" and the "triumph of lactification," a word he invents to describe said whitening. While everyone else read Dreams From My Father and saw Obama burning with disappointment in Barack Sr., D'Souza sees a man burning with "hatred derived from the debris of the anti-colonial wars." Even the title of Obama's book becomes ominous, when D'Souza takes his third crack at analyzing it: "[T]here have been cases of men who are so preoccupied with their dark dreams that they have difficulty adjusting to contemporary reality. The dream, as it were, becomes a time machine."

Read this book, or the version mystifyingly splashed on the cover of Forbes, and you have to think that D'Souza has ruined a very fun game for conservatives. He's taken a not-so-subtle political trick—the intimation that Obama must be hiding something about his past, something that reveals why he's been such a left-wing president—and made it much more difficult. That's because the quest to find anti-colonial sentiment in Obama's biography reminds us that, in fact, Obama has never tried to cover up this part of his past. If he had, the first lines of his star-making 2004 DNC speech screwed that up.

"My father was a foreign student," said Obama, "born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father—my grandfather—was a cook, a domestic servant to the British."

There's nothing in that speech about Obama Sr.'s 1965 musing about confiscatory taxes, but here's the man making his national political debut by hinting at the "source of his rage": colonialism. He seemed to have gotten over it. And if pulling that one quote from this speech to make a point seems cheap, it's less of a stretch then poring over, literally, a few dozen pages of a best-selling memoir to argue that the man who favored a smaller stimulus than Paul Krugman and a wider war in Afghanistan than Joe Biden is a closet Mau Mau.

What will be the impact of D'Souza's book? If 1995 and 2007 repeat themselves, Gingrich will be the exception—people in the rest of the movement will realize just how tissue-thin this research is. If they realize that, they may then look askance at Glenn Beck's search for similar evidence of Obama's radical history. They may even question the wisdom of questioning Obama's birthplace. Could the search for some skeleton key in Obama's past be a distraction? It could be! If it were a book, it could be called the The End of Birtherism.

http://www.slate.com/id/2267179?obref=obnetwork

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:36 PM
Gingrich & Dinesh D'Souza's = two crazy NeoCons.

Ugly Duck
09-15-2010, 08:13 AM
How many teleprompter jokes can we get from the truly original thinkers on chiefsplanet? Three so far.

The teleprompter joke grew out of reaction to George Bush's idiocy. So righties figure they'll give a go at trying to apply it to Obama as well (worth a shot, anyway). Its not working anywhere outside of the Tea People types who want to believe he's a Kenyan Marxist Muslim Fascist Socialist.

orange
09-15-2010, 01:07 PM
The teleprompter joke grew out of reaction to George Bush's idiocy. So righties figure they'll give a go at trying to apply it to Obama as well (worth a shot, anyway). Its not working anywhere outside of the Tea People types who want to believe he's a Kenyan Marxist Muslim Fascist Socialist.

You only said "Kenyan" once. :shake:

Jenson71
09-15-2010, 06:11 PM
This piece has created a bit of a stir for its lunacy and Newt's support.

From M. Dowd:

Newt told The National Review Online that it was the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama” and said D’Souza shows that the president “is so outside our comprehension” that you can only understand him “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.”

Newt added: “This a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president.”

So the smear artists are claiming not only that the president is a socialist but that he suffers from a socialism gene.

“Our president is trapped in his father’s time machine,” D’Souza writes in Forbes, offering a genetic theory of ideology. “Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

Playing into the bigotry of birthers and haters who paint Obama as “the other,” D’Souza writes that the president was raised offshore, spending “his formative years — the first 17 years of his life — off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.” The ominous-sounding time in Pakistan was merely a visit when Obama was a college student.

Gingrich, who ditched two wives (the first when she was battling cancer; the second after an affair with the third — a House staffer — while he was impeaching Bill Clinton), now professes to be a good Catholic. Evidently the first two wives don’t count because he hadn’t converted to Catholicism. He even had a big Catholic conversion Mass here with his third wife, Callista, celebrated by a retinue of eight priests and three bishops.

But he is downright un-Christian when he does not hesitate to visit the alleged sins of the father upon the son.

Some of Newt’s old conservative friends worry that he has gone “over the ledge,” as one put it.

If it wasn’t so sick it would be funny. It’s worse than a conspiracy theory because this conspiracy consists of a single dead individual. The idea that there’s something illegitimate about anticolonialism on the part of a Kenyan man in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s is stupid. And it’s inconsistent to accuse a president who’s raining drones on bad guys in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen of having an inherited anticolonial ideology.

It’s also really low. D’Souza and Gingrich are not merely discrediting the president’s father’s ideology. They’re discrediting his character and insinuating that the son inherited not just his father’s bad ideology but a bad character, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/opinion/15dowd.html?ref=opinion

StcChief
09-15-2010, 06:34 PM
let history show BHO as President, how he had impact on America. jury is still out.