President Wimp

03 December 2010

Not diplomatic to say, but apparently true

Having voted for President Obama (in preference to his ludicrously shape-changing, mentally declining opponent), I now find myself disgusted with the President’s lack of spine and the absence of even the slimmest admirable political focus.

Were he an athlete and I his coach, he would be carrying his soiled shorts and duffel bag on a one-way trip out the locker room door.

Summary of the case against the President’s professional character

The mid-term election’s aftermath revealed the President for the breeze-twitching political noodle that he has become.

Domestically, this is a man who claims intellectual mastery, but who can’t even figure out how to close the political door on opponents who have walked themselves into a deficit-deepening tax-cut box with an exceedingly narrow exit door.

In foreign affairs, though willing to needlessly sacrifice the lives of American military men and women in Afghanistan — in an egregiously counter-productive war — this same President is apparently unwilling to act forcibly against Julian Assange (of WikiLeaks fame).

The President’s lack of fighting ability

The ex-street cop in me gets impatient with people who are reluctant to mix it up with obstructionist “behinds.”

“Obstructionist behinds” characterizes the Republican Party today. Behind-people desist from destructive behavior only when they get stomped by someone willing to be an even bigger donkey than they are.

Playground kids, police, and military people all know this. Why doesn’t the Commander in Chief?

My guess is what it has always been — the President has glided to success most of his life without having been significantly tested. He was born without an Adversity Spine and never grew one. He is at a leadership loss when it starts to rain and the clouds are not listening to insubstantial rhetoric.

Federal pay freeze and tax cuts extension

In regard to the proposed extension of tax cuts to even the richest Americans, the President has a handy deficit and fairness hammer with which to score political points. Instead of using it, he gave his political opponents the unsolicited gift of freezing federal employee wages for two years.

In parallel with his self-serving exploitation of the Afghanistan War, the President demonstrated an equivalently amoral willingness to sacrifice a narrow sector of our society (federal employees), so as to appease Republicans. These Republicans are already on record as being willing to sink the entire American ship, so as to benefit the even smaller population of plutocrats who run the country.

Yesterday, economist Paul Krugman wrote accurately about the President’s self-serving cynicism:

The truth is that America’s long-run deficit problem has nothing at all to do with overpaid federal workers. For one thing, those workers aren’t overpaid. Federal salaries are, on average, somewhat less than those of private-sector workers with equivalent qualifications. And, anyway, employee pay is only a small fraction of federal expenses; even cutting the payroll in half would reduce total spending less than 3 percent.

So freezing federal pay is cynical deficit-reduction theater. It’s a (literally) cheap trick that only sounds impressive to people who don’t know anything about budget realities. The actual savings, about $5 billion over two years, are chump change given the scale of the deficit.

Today, Eugene Robinson analyzed the political logic of the tax cut fight and the President’s implied spinelessness in regard to it:

Here's what [the Republicans] argue: Extend the tax cuts for the richest Americans - in fact, make them permanent. Doing so would increase the deficit by $700 billion over the next decade, but this doesn't matter. We did tell you that we're the party of fiscal responsibility, however, so to prove it we'll block the extension of unemployment benefits for millions of jobless workers. Three weeks before Christmas.

In other words, there's no additional money in the national coffers for the victims of the most devastating recession since the Great Depression. But to help investment bankers start the new year right, perhaps with a new Mercedes or a bit of sun in the Caribbean? Step right up, and we'll write you a check. . . .

Presidential leadership? What’s that?

Dropping the international ball — WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

WikiLeaks’ airing of American diplomatic communications was an embarrassment. Arguably, the publication does little traceably direct damage.

What should incense us are the ideas that (i) the American diplomatic corps can’t keep secrets and (ii) Julian Assange can so easily spit on American attempts to keep its secrets private.

He should be in custody.

Charles Krauthammer’s argument in this regard is well taken:

What is notable, indeed shocking, is the administration's torpid and passive response to the leaks. What's appalling is the helplessness of a superpower that not only cannot protect its own secrets but shows the world that if you violate its secrets - massively, wantonly and maliciously - there are no consequences.

From a president who led, but in a poor direction, to one who doesn’t lead at all

President George W. Bush is currently undergoing a slight revival of reputation. I suspect that this is because his strength of spine and his determination contrast so favorably with President Obama’s lack of both.

Admittedly, spine-full leadership in the wrong direction, as President Bush did, is not grossly more helpful than the current President’s spineless non-direction. It’s just slightly less frustrating to watch. And it defines the issues better. That’s worth something.

Better to be strong and wrong than weak and nothing.

“Now where are my teeth?”

Leadership requires teeth.

Indolent President Obama is still looking for the nightstand glass holding his leadership dentures.

PeteFree.com

President Wimp