Monday, December 1, 2008

What a Week We’re Having!

Already, more than six weeks BEFORE the Obama administration takes rein, many far-Left liberals and their like-minded friends in the mainstream media, who’ve believed that Obama's election would soften our enemy’s view of us, have been proven wrong. In fact, any perception of weakness on America's part, going forward would seem to only embolden terrorists to ramp up their attacks.
And that is just ONE of the lessons from the attacks on Mumbai.

The fact that the Mumbai radical Islamists targeted Americans and British citizens highlights why this can't be portrayed as an internal matter specific to India.

Moreover, Mumbai proves that “al Qaeda is NOT America’s sole, or even primary enemy in the War on Terror (WoT),” as much as it proves that the WoT isn’t going away.

America and the West’s enemy in the WoT is radical Islamists, NOT merely al Qaeda.
As for those far-Left liberals (the MoveOn and Daily-Kossocks), who believed that a President Obama would carry out their anti-WoT agenda are the big losers here, with further disillusionment almost certain to follow.

Sure, Chris Mathews has gone on record claiming that he believes that Obama has picked a largely “Right-wing cabinet,” precisely in order to move Left.

Well that may be what Chris Mathews thinks (hopes), but it doesn’t gibe with the reality of the Obama team’s recent delaying, if not halting, the end of the Bush tax cuts, a very market-oriented economic team, no more talk about an early Iraq pullout and the maintaining of Robert Gates and the naming of Janet Napolitano (a strict border enforcer and WoT supporter) as Homeland Security. None of those developments bode well for any lurch to the Left by team Obama.

But the bottom-line will be results and we’ll all see what happens. Wilting from the WoT and Left-wing, hair-brained economic policies would almost certainly both result in disasters.

Disasters that the Obama team almost certainly wants to avoid at all costs.

We’ll see soon enough whether Centrist Americans or the hard-Left will be the most disappointed in the coming administration.

My money’s on the latter.


Rachel said...

In short, either Obama grew up or realized he was going to be the next target for blame since W isn't going to be around. I say this because based on his resume, he has no clue what to do and has his hand held.
And I think Hil getting the SoS job was part of the "deal" back in August.
And I'm still ticked he avoided the G20 summit. That was his responsibilty.

JMK said...

Hmmmm, I don't have a handle on O at all at this point.

I know people who claim that Obama's team is extremely well-disciplined and focused, which is probably a testament to Axelrod, at this point.

Still, he's surrounded himself with good people. Rahm Emanuel is a pit bull and he's a anti-terror hawk and one of the architects of the rise of the Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat since 2006.

His economic team, Summers and Geithner are very market-oriented and Janet Napolitano was an unexpected pleasant surprise, almost as much as Eric Holder was an unpleasant one.

So far, on the whole, I'm impressed and I remain cautiously optimistic...hoping for the best.

I think Chris Mathews' charge, the other night, that Obama was naming a Right-wing cbinet in order to move Left makes no sense, as they have no reason to do that. At this point they could move Left without the pretense without any ramifications.

I agree with you about the G-20 and probably about future prospects.

At this point, too many people expect this guy to fix everything with no unpleasant side effects.

I think the expectations are far too high and the problems we face, far too daunting for anyone to easily fix...the economy, like the WoT are going to take some time and patience....something we Americans have in very short supply.

But right now, aside from Holder (a Reno throwback, and a guy who freed the FALN terrorists), his picks have been surprisingly sunny, at least from my decidedly "Right-wing" perspective.

At this point, I have to look at it as "We elected this guy. Yes McCain did more to lose, than he did to win, but he won and we have to give this guy a fair chance."

Ultimately results are what's going to matter, BUT right now a lot of folks are just looking for things to hammer this guy with.

I'm hoping for the best and I know I'll be sorely disapoointed at spots, but it's nice to know that the hard-Left has also been in for some disappointments so early on.

Rachel said...

I'm willing to admit he's done good. But I'm doubtful of his leadership due to his light resume. I could be wrong and he is picking these folk.

JMK said...

I agree that his experience is certainly light, but he has put together a very strong team.

Axelrod is very competent and his choice of Rahm Emanuel, a relatively Conservative Democrat and one of the architects of the "Blue Dog revolution" of 2006 was a surprise to me.

I keep hearing that Obama is a pragmatist rather than an idealist and that while teaching at the University of Chicago, was friendly with many of those in their very market-oriented economics department. Milton Friedman was still a Professor Emeritus there, I believe.

Still, I have a hard time believing that the same guy who hung with Wright and Ayers, courted the New Black Panther Party and helped sue CitiBank over its not offering enough subprime loans is a "non-ideological pragmatist."

I guess we'll see.

I can say that he's surprised me so far, but there's a long trip ahead and I do expect to be disapointed.

Deb said...

Obama did not show-up at the G2O event because he is not President yet. Obama reps told reporters,"It is not appropriate for two people to show up at this meeting," "The president-elect will respect the fact that we have one president at a time."

And I don't know why Rachel keeps talking about Obama's "light resume." Let me remind you of Bush's resume prior to his Presidency, which is why we are in this current mess:
* Atleast one drunk driving conviction in Maine, driving records sealed in Texas
* Ran for congress and lost.
* Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
* Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company went bankrupt shortly after he sold all his stock.
* Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
* With father's help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
* Elected President without the popular vote and the Florida recount suspiciously going in his favor

And Rachel is doubtful of Obama's leadership and thinks he has no clue. Obama does not strike me as a guy that needs his hand held, but a guy who realizes that he can't do it alone and has surrounded himself with capable people. That is what a good leader does.

JMK said...

Well Deb, people talk about Obama's "light resume" because he spent less than three years in national office prior to running for President.

He's one of only six men to be lected to that office without pritor executive experience (either Governor of a State or VP).

Ronald Reagan was a Governor, George Bush Sr was a VP, Bill Clinton was a Governor and G W was a Governor.

There was nothig at all "suspicious" about the Florida recount.

The ONLY way Gore would've won is IF the FL Supreme Court were to allow all those seniors who voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore to, in effect re-vote ("clarify their voting preference"). That's what the FL court wanted to do.

The U.S. Supreme Court then stepped in and halted the recount at that point to avoid that bit of election perversion.

G W Bush has been a Liberal's dream!

His tax cuts, which RAISED tax revenues in every year since (his across the board income tax cuts increased income tax revenues greatly) and his Capital Gains rate cut (from 20% down to 15% increased Cap Gains revenues, as well.

Sadly, that increase in revenues was coupled with an adle-berain increase in social and educational expenditures. Bush Jr engaged in more wild social spending (yes, even adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did!

Just as Bill Clinton warred with a Liberal, Keynesian Democratic Congress and came to cooperate better with the Supply Side Gingrich Congress, Bush Jr. has come to cooperate more fully with a Liberal, Keynesian Democratic Congress, since 2007.

Ironically enough, it's been SINCE 2007 that America's economy has gone off the rails!

I think you'd agree, we need Newt Gingrich back again.

It was Newt Gingrich who cut federal spending (the first and ONLY Congress to do that since WW II) and it was the Gingrich Congress that slashed the Cap Gains rate from 30% to 20% and foisted a miraculous Welfare Reform package (that's saved NYC alone over $40 BILLION over ten years! Those things resulted in the some of the lowest Misery Indexes since the 1950s (1998's 6.05 MI was the lowest since 1956), they also created all those SURPLUSES at the end of the Clinton years!

On Obama, he certainly has surrounded himself with good people - Rahm Emanuel (a Conservative Democrat and one of the architects of the "Blue Dog Democrat election" of 2006), Robert Gates, Governor Napolitano, Larry Summers (a very market-oriented economist) to name but a few.

Rahm Emanuel's choice as Chief-of-Staff is a harsh signal to the Left that the Obama administration appears to claim to owe them little.

Obama COULD very well turn out to be another Bill Clinton...only we'd need to turn Congress back over to another Gingrich by 2010 for that to hold.

American Ideas Click Here!