“Obama is Already Over.”
Would someone care to explain to me convincingly (i.e. without resorting to noise, sneers, and flying spittle) why the following is not true? I’d really like to be convinced, and contemptuous dismissal or diversion by food fight is not going to do it.
Obama is already over. In six short months the now-spattered bumper stickers with “Hope and Change” seem like pathetic remnants from the days of “23 Skidoo,” the echoes of “Yes, we can” more nauseating than ever in their cliché-ridden evasiveness. Although they may pretend otherwise, even Obama’s choir in the mainstream media seems to know he’s finished, their defenses of his wildly over-priced medical and cap-and-trade schemes perfunctory at best. Everyone knows we can’t afford them. His stimulus plan – if you could call it his, maybe it’s Geithner’s, maybe it’s someone else’s, maybe it’s not a plan at all – has produced absolutely nothing. In fact, I have met not one person of any ideology who evinces genuine confidence in it.
On the foreign policy front, it’s more embarrassing. He switches positions every day, such as they are, while acting like a petit-bourgeois snob with our allies and then, when people with genuine passion for democracy emerge on the scene (the courageous Iranian protestors), behaves like a cringeworthy, equivocating creep. Enough of Obama.
Only the Republicans are barely any better. We have yet to hear any original ideas from them and there isn’t a real leader on the horizon, mostly retreads like Gingrich and Romney and disappointments, to put it mildly, like Mark Sanford. I write this only hours after Sarah Palin’s announcement of her resignation as Alaska governor and don’t know yet what to make of that. I certainly agree with those who say the attacks on her were unconscionable, but I challenge her most staunch defenders to say that this is really the kind of person to lead us out of our Twenty-First Century malaise.
Of course, you could argue that it’s just Obama’s honeymoon that’s over. Now the actual marriage to the handsome, seductive stranger begins. Probably both parties to the marriage are going, “What have I done??!”
Ambiance 
Margo Arrowsmith said,
July 5, 2009 at 11:49 am
Wow, while we have no way of knowing what you are referring to, I am going to guess that your foreign policy remark is about Iran You may or may not know that the Iranian rebels and other citizens are very happy with the amount of support they got from him AND his refusal to try to intervene as previous American administrations have done. Other than that, I have no idea what you are embarrassed about.
Domestically? He’s just getting started. Those who say he is over are either those who never wanted him to start and set it up from the day he was elected that he is ‘ever’ or those whose need for instant gratification is paramount.
Or perhaps you could be more specific about why you ‘think he is over’.
amba12 said,
July 5, 2009 at 12:07 pm
That wasn’t me saying he’s over, it was Roger L Simon. I think I forgot to put in the link. (Thanks for the reminder.)
Regarding Iran, I think he did the right thing with the wrong style. I see him through a different lens than most people. The left sees him through a rose-colored lens, so everything has a positive spin. The right sees him through black sunglasses, so everything looks dark. I see him through a lens of badly wanting him to be better than he is, so whenever he’s not so great I can neither lie to myself and say this is just some really clever form of greatness, nor can I revel and exult in his failings.
Domestically, I don’t understand how a debt crisis is cured by taking on more debt (I tried that myself! It just makes the ultimate unavoidable crash far worse, but in a president’s case, possibly postpones it just long enough to be blamed on someone else). I don’t understand how, to create expensive government programs, you can justify just printing more Monopoly money. Doesn’t that destroy the international value of the dollar?? And, I no longer feel that government knows best, or even that the human intellect knows best. I think I may be turning into . . . A LIBERTARIAN???? At least in some ways. (Libertarians are mostly happy with Obama’s Iran noninvolvement. Myself, I think he abdicated the ceremonial role of the American president, which, if he was really all that smart, he could’ve figured out how to play while still keeping hands off. As it is, he gets blamed for interfering without even getting the credit he could’ve gotten for being inspiring.)
wj said,
July 5, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I guess I see Obama thru the lens of a somewhat right-of-center supporter. I see a politician, and a good one. One who is inclined to spend time building a concensus which will give him most of what he wants — even though it takes longer than some people who agree with most of his positions on the issues would like.
Take an obvious domestic issue, or rather set of issues: gays. Do I expect that, before the end of his first term, Don’t Ask; Don’t tell and the Defense of Marriage Act will both be history? I do (and good riddance to them). Do I expect (did I ever expect) that they will be gone in his first year in office? No. First off, they are not as urgent a priority for the nation as a whole as several other things that are on his plate. Second, they are issues where the national concensus is moving in his direction already. And the best way to reverse that trend is to make people, specifically the folks who are in the process of changing their minds, feel like they are being stampeded.
Obama’s way will get it done. More importantly, it will get it done in a way that means that it not only won’t get reversed, but it won’t be a decades long culture wars flashpoint. Consider how different politics would have been without Roe v. Wade. At the time, abortion was being legalized in ever more places. In another 5 years, it would have still been illegal in few enough places that national legalization could probably have happened. And even if it hadn’t gotten nationwide legalization mandated at that point, it would have mattered about as much as it matters that there are still places where purchasing alcohol is illegal.
The same could, I believe, be said about Obama’s lack of dramatic action on many perhaps most) of the issues where you are disappointed. Yes, progress is slower than you and Mr. Simon might like. I admit I’d be happy for faster progress, too. But I put a higher priority on progress that will stick. And that will not become a cause for years of nasty politics in the future.
Rod said,
July 5, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Obama is far from over. We just enacted Cap and Trade. Some form of serious revamp of health care appears likely. The public works projects have barely broken ground. At some point in the next two years we will have to pay for what we are now doing, either through higher taxes or inflation. Obama will push through a moderately “leveling” tax increase, which we will endure with inflation, and keep spending. Meanwhile, the social agenda will move forward, albeit more slowly than some of his supporters.
Obama will be reelected in 2004 because we will still be “solving the problems created by the economic meltdown,” and the Republicans will produce no credible alternative. Democrats will suffer substantial setbacks in the mid-term elections in 2014, at which point Obama will be mostly over, except that he will still appoint every federal judge at every level in the country for another two years.
amba12 said,
July 5, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I didn’t know I was talking about disappointment with “lack of dramatic action.” I thought I was talking about dramatic action to spend a whole lot more money we don’t have.
amba12 said,
July 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm
But, wj, I think you’re wise in what you say about his actions on gays.
wj said,
July 5, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Amba, I share your concern about spending money that we don’t have. But I am willing to accept that there are times (a lot fewer than our government makes use of, but some few) when deficit spending is a necessity. “Necessity” as in, the alternatives are worse. And I think that now is one of those rare times.
Note that I am not talking about spending a whole lot of money that we don’t have to achieve universal health care. (Much as it might benefit me personally.) That’s a whole different issue. (I can go on at length about group vs. individual policies — the latter frequently unavailable; and about the folly of making business health care expenses tax deductible while individual policies are not.) But spending to attempt to kick-start an economic recovery — probably acceptable . . . even if the effect is achieved more by psychology than by the actual spending.
michael grant said,
July 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Simon’s piece is inexplicable. So is your endorsement of same.
With the exception of DADT Obama has done exactly what he said he’d do. Exactly what I expected him to do. He has not done what either the crazy haters on the right or the crazy fans on the left imagined he would do, but that’s not exactly his fault, is it. He’s doing what he said he would do, being who he said he would be.
He cut taxes for low incomes. He reached out to the Muslim world. He withdrew combat forces in compliance with the SOFA. He put more troops into Afghanistan and continued Predator attacks in Pakistan. He’s pushed cap and trade through the House. He’s pushing health reform. He bailed out the banks. He’s put out a very moderate financial reform and oversight package. He’s done it all without drama and without harsh words on his part.
So, he’s busily doing just what he said he’d do, he’s at 60% in the polls, and he’s over?
Randy said,
July 5, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I think the author is wrong, but I’ve thought he’s been wrong on a host of things for quite some time. Obama is far from over – he’s just starting. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I am a supporter like wj does, but I do think Margo, wj and Rod hit the right notes in their responses. That’s not to say I like everything being done, either. I think that Cap & Trade will turn out to be a boondoggle enriching congressional campaign coffers and their personal investments (there were other ways to accomplish the same thing), and the stimulus bill was 4x the amount needed as 3/4 of it wasn’t even stimulus related. Still, I think the Iran situation has been well-handled thus far and the Sotomayor pick a good one.
Aside to wj: Individual health insurance policies are tax-deductible on Schedule A. The premiums are supposed to be included in the line for medical & dental expenses. (Only to the extent it exceeds 7.5% of AGI, however.) IIRC, someone who is self-employed gets to deduct 1/2 the cost on line 29 of the 1040 form and the balance on Schedule A.
wj said,
July 5, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Thanks, Randy! Always nice to learn something new and useful. (Insert rant about the desirability of a tax code which can be understood by anyone with a high school education. Which definitely isn’t our current one.)
That solves half the problem. The other half being that, if you have any kind of pre-existing condition, your chances of finding an insurer who will write you a policy at all are slim. And it can be something mild, and easily and relatively inexpensively treatable — take epilepsy which is entirely controlled my medication as an obvious example. But as an employee, you can get in on the group insurance without problem, no matter what condition you are in.
wj said,
July 5, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Cap and Trade could have been an OK solution. Not as good as a straight carbon tax, perhaps, but OK. But as it looks to be emerging from Congress, boondoggle is almost too kind a description.
Randy said,
July 5, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Straight carbon tax didn’t have a prayer because there is no money in for Congress or the lobbyists. The mystical features of C&T allows for both and plenty of hidden items in unrelated legislation changing the calculation for this or that special interest.
amba12 said,
July 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Thank you, Michael, for the invective-free argument! I didn’t know about “Stupid Blog Name” and was glad to discover it.
I do think we have to make the transition from a “petroleum-based economy” somehow (for national-security reasons among others), and that inertia and vested interests will delay it as long as possible so government loading of incentives and penalties may be necessary to shift the thing off dead center. I’ve heard some touting a petroleum-based economy as a sacred and inviolable centerpiece of capitalism. It surely was a centerpiece of the great wealth we have enjoyed up till now and we may never quite see its likes again (but never say never). However, there are as yet undiscovered sources of wealth and convenience ahead. I have also loved the power and freedom of the American automobile as much as anyone, but don’t regard it as an inalienable right, am aware of its costs, and think that a somewhat physically slower and more local way of life overall would have compensatory benefits.
The sheer massiveness of the deficit spending, however, scares the crap out of me (and doesn’t seem to be likely to accomplish much in the near term). I also don’t see what concrete alternatives for dealing with the economic crisis have been proposed (can anyone point me to them if they have been?), other than “let it crash and tough it out, it’ll be worse but quicker.”
Randy said,
July 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Amba, when I saw your last comment, I was wondering who you were talking to and then “Is Margo Michael?” popped into my head. LOL! Michael hadn’t commented when I opened the edit window for my initial comment, so I didn’t see it until now. Had I seen it, I would have included it with the others I mentioned in my first comment.
Randy said,
July 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Aside to no one: The irrigation controller went haywire this week and half the plants have had no water even though it said it was watering. So, I’ve spent the morning manually turning on and off (or forgetting to in timely fashion) 12 valves located in various hard-to reach places. What fun.
amba12 said,
July 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Another device reliance on which you’ve just been made unpleasantly aware of!
The Anchoress — A First Things Blog said,
July 6, 2009 at 1:35 pm
[…] a very small comfort to know that Obama’s Honeymoon Of Unconditional Love seems to be drawing to a reluctant end. One can’t help wishing the press had not stood in our way for the past two years, as we were […]
sauropod said,
July 6, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Amba wrote, “Domestically, I don’t understand how a debt crisis is cured by taking on more debt (I tried that myself! It just makes the ultimate unavoidable crash far worse …”
I don’t think this is necessarily true. The analogy between federal government debt and personal debt is flawed, because the federal government, unlike a private citizen or even a state government, prints its own currency. There is thus no chance that the federal government will default. There is, of course, a chance that large deficits will bring on inflation, but in today’s environment deflation is probably the more serious worry.
Even if in the case of a private citizen, acquiring more debt can sometimes be a smart move. It’s not smart to acquire debt to buy consumer goods, but it often makes sense to take out a loan for education or job training, which may increase the person’s earning capacity down the line. If the stimulus serves to grow the economy (increasing our national earning capacity), then it may turn out to be a good investment.
What really matters is whether or not the government can service the debt – i.e., pay the interest – without destructive consequences for the economy as a whole. Obama is gambling that the stimulus will pull the economy out of recession and generate substantial new tax revenues to service the debt. Critics think the stimulus will not pull us out of the recession fast enough or robustly enough, in which case the debt will have to be serviced by raising tax rates and/or raising interest rates, both counterproductive. (Raising interest rates allows the government to sell more bonds, by which it finances the existing debt.)
A good blog that gives the case for using more government debt as a way to grow out of the recession is the Skeptical Optimist:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/
I think we underestimate Obama at our peril. “The folks,” as Bill O’Reilly would say, seem to really like the guy, and I suspect he is on track to be reelected in 2012.
amba12 said,
July 6, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Waaaaay too soon to know if Obama is on track for 2012 or not. That will depend on the economy and other unforeseeables. I hope he has a steep learning curve.
amba12 said,
July 7, 2009 at 2:57 am
Right Wing Nut House (whose continual self-examination and reevaluation of the turning world from a conservative still point impresses me greatly) quoted the following and labeled it “tripe”:
“We are seeing even those small marks of personal pride and independence — the freedom to rev up the engine on a Friday night — taken away. The muscle cars, under the diktat of the president and head of General Motors, are simply being eliminated and replaced by Yugo-style cars.”
This in regard to my remark above suggesting that some evidently regard petroleum as America’s testosterone and big/fast cars as sacred centerpieces of American capitalism and masculinity.
For the record, I’d personally find fast cars harder to part with than big ones. (And I suspect American ingenuity will pretty quickly find ways to make cars that are fast and clean.) But this was a particular technology at a particular time. It isn’t the essence of America, it’s one expression of it. The Founding Fathers did not have muscle cars. Let not confidence be sapped by nostalgia. Forms come and go, the spirit moves and lives on.
wj said,
July 7, 2009 at 11:40 am
If you read that quote again, you may notice something. The critical feature is not that the cars are big. Or that they are fast. no, the critical aspect is that they are LOUD. That’s the muscles he’s talking about.
And this isn’t really that big a surprise. But then, I already knew of people who put sound systems in their cars, simply in order to enhance the engine sounds. That, my dear, is America’s testosterone: loudness. Doesn’t matter whether it’s conservatives revving their car engines, or liberals at rock concerts. Loudness — that’s what matters.
amba12 said,
July 7, 2009 at 11:59 am
You’re hitting on all cylinders today, wj!!
wj said,
July 7, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Must be all those years listening to Jan & Dean and the Beach Boys. ;-)
karen said,
July 8, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Amba- do you mean, like this?:
“President Obama is growing government outrageously, and it’s immoral and it’s uneconomic, his plan that he tries to sell America. His plan to “put America on the right track” economically, incurring the debt that our nation is incurring, trillions of dollars that we’re passing on to our kids, expecting them to pay off for us, is immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense. So his growth of government agenda needs to be ratcheted back, and it’s going to take good people who have the guts to stand up to him, stand up to him and debate policy, not personalities, not partisan politics, but policy to effect the change that we need there.”
karen said,
July 8, 2009 at 10:25 pm
That’s a Palin quote, btw.
Have i ever told you that i love Camille Paglia? Her honesty makes my teeth ache.