Friday, February 19, 2010

Obama the wimp



Obama is so fearful of offending China, it seems, that he sends his guest, the Dalai Lama, out the back door of the White House past a pile of garbage.


Look at this unbelievable picture of this old man, being hustled away next to a mound of trash bags. Is that any way to treat a guest???

Obama is so conflicted in everything he does. Why did he invite the Dalai Lama in the first place if he ends up treating him like that in the end?

His insecurity shows in everything he does.

12 comments:

Tom Hickey said...

He doesn't stand for anything. He's reactive not proactive.

Mike Norman said...

He denigrates the U.S. with everything he says and does. Totally reactive, yes.

googleheim said...

yes, but he is better than Pawlenty and Grover Norquist

Tom Hickey said...

The question is Obama vs. McCain, since that was the choice. When someone asked me about Obama during the campaign. I said his election would be a disaster. Then he asked me about McCain. I said it would result in total catastrophe.

Any Democrat is less of a disaster than any Republican. The Republicans are committed to economic policies that destructive of both public purpose and the economy. The Dems are just incompetent, not dangerous.

The Democrats just can't seem to get it together to bridle the oligarchs Nor can they effectively advance public purpose because they think that they can't "pay for" it.

There is no comparison here with respect to proportional effects between the economic policies of the two parties. With McCain, we'd already be in Great Depression II if he carried out his economic program, and we would also be at war with Iran at the same time. And the GOP has moved further to the right since then.

Mike Norman said...

Agreed. Pawlenty is a total idiot.

Mike Norman said...

Tom,

I voted for McCain, but not because I thought he'd be better for the economy. I just thought he'd be tougher on national security and I questioned Obama's experience.

Tom Hickey said...

Mike, I can see your point, and that was a risk. But it seemed to me that if Phil Gramm were to become Treasury secretary or chief economic advisor, with McCain completely in the dark about economics, we'd have been toast economically.

Obama seems to have found himself on national security and that's his strong suit. But it is debatable, I think, whether the US should be expending its resources in the way it is in that region. I think there is a smarter way to do it than the macho way. After all, Bin Laden has announced he intends to bankrupt the US by suckering us into doing just what we've been doing.

Matt Franko said...

Tom,
Mike commented on this at the time;
This was McCains "bold proposal" to solve our foreign oil dependence: a $300M prize to spend probably billions to have multiple business entities "compete" to develop a new battery!

I kid you not this was his quote: " The bounty would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country, "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency," Think of the absurdity of this statement! If we could just spend $1.00 each we could end foreign oil dependence?! If it was that easy doesnt he think that would have been done already?! Loser!

You bring up a good point that Gramm was advising him, Gramm and his wife Wendy are to me just as dangerous as Dems Rubin and Summers....Gramm was Clinton admins partner in the Senate when they turned commodity markets into the giant speculative casino they have become....they let IBs be reclassified as Commercials as I understand it..

Tom Hickey said...

Matt, Gramm and Rubin were instrumental in engineering the financial deregulation that resulted in the crisis. Summers was Rubin's deputy and then later succeeded him at Treasury. McCain was up front about relying on Gramm, but Obama had a bevy of advisors. Who would have thought that he would bring back Rubinomics. I supported Obama over Clinton in that I thought she was likely to do just what Obama has done. I really didn't think it would this bad, since I thought he would appoint better advisors. I opposed him because his is bascially a Chicago pol, as his immediate appointment of Rahm Emmanuel revealed. He doesn't know anything about economics, and is basically a neoliberal in his outlook. Plus he knows that he needs to kow-tow to Wall Street for the donations, when we needed an FDR to appoint a Pecora and clean house. Now we are screwed.

Paul said...

Hi

An observation from afar.

The last Federal election in the US was the choice between the same old/middle age white guy/woman or something young, untried and different.

To the US electors credit they went for the untried and different rather than the same old thing again.

My point is, the US embraced something new (it could all end in tears), which, from a distance, seems to show that the US is still a dynamic forward thinking nation, unafraid to turn the rudder, given the opportunity. Congratulations US electors, that was the choice of a confident outward looking nation. Not that of an empire in decline.

However, I do agree with your assessment of the current administration.

Regards
Paul

Mike Norman said...

And I totally agree with what you said, Paul.

Tom Hickey said...

I agree, too. Regardless of his faults, Obama has reset America's image in the world and given it an intergenerational push that is long overdue. This is a net positive and there are three years to go. There is a learning curve in the most challenging job in the world, and I am optimistic about the future of America, even though I am concerned about challenges and hurdles on the path of getting there. This is a time for unity, not divisiveness.