Obama the Pacific President? Not so much

bobw says:

01:27pm | 30/09/10

In what sense is Obama an “unserious president”?  And exactly which world leaders consider him “a joke”?

St. Michael says:

02:10pm | 30/09/10

@bobw: He’s an unserious president because he was elected on a vague promise of ‘change’, which means he has a mandate for precisely zip.  He’s a shill: has no real convictions of his own other than a love for power.  He prevaricates on every subject.  I read his (rather premature) autobiography and it expresses how he’s behaving as a President: talk a good game, make no statement that puts you firmly on the left or right on an issue, and express no leadership - instead shift responsibility by calling for “consensus” before doing anything.  The man has never held down a paying job or even military service in his life - he’s strictly been an academic or a “community organiser”.  Insofar as the US Presidency is concerned, he is utterly unqualified for it.

And it’s clear that Iran’s leader certainly considers him a joke.  Obama said “We will extend the hand of friendship if you unclench your fist” trying to channel JFK.  Iran’s response was to unclench the middle finger of its fist, but nothing else.  Obama’s response? Nothing, really. 

See, Obama is Gen Y’s Jimmy Carter.  Probably a nice guy, but better placed in a useless body like the UN than the world’s last nuclear superpower.  In the Senate he could probably get by voting “present” on most bills, but in the office of the US President he stands out like a wooden horse in a cavalry charge.

By contrast, Ronald Reagan (who succeeded Carter) had a clear and definable approach to Iran,  It was so well-known and straightforward that there was a joke ahead of the 1980 election in which he came to power: “Q.: What’s green and glows in the dark? A.: Tehran after Inauguration Day.”  Iran certainly didn’t think it, or Reagan, was a joke.  They were that poop-scared of him they released dozens of US hostages they’d been holding for a year the day Reagan was elected to the Presidency.

(Not that I think Reagan was a fantastic President, but he was miles ahead of Obama when it came to foreign policy - Reagan got his own, far more successful JFK-Obama moment when he cried out “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”  A year or two later, that’s exactly what they did.)

Eric says:

03:20pm | 30/09/10

Obama is unserious because his words are worthless. Case in point: the Gulf oil spill, when he said he would not rest until the problem was solved - then went for another holiday. Holidays of which he has had way more than George Bush ever did.

As for foreign leaders who consider Obama a joke, I would list Putin, Ahmadinejad, and Kim just for a start.

Bill says:

07:15pm | 30/09/10

@eric. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to manufacture “facts”. As at early July, Obama was reported in the Chicago Sun Times newspaper as trailing Bush by 120 days to 65 in vacation time taken at the same point in his presidency, Bush holds a record for vacation time that will be hard for the most idle president to beat.

Eric is Wrong says:

07:27pm | 30/09/10

@eric: wrong. “President Obama has spent all or part of 26 days “on vacation” during his first year as president, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.” only Clinton & Carter had less, 22 & 19 respectively.
Reagan 42, Bush snr 50, Bush jnr 69.

bobw says:

05:52am | 01/10/10

@Eric/St. Michael:  First, as others have pointed out, it’s just not the case that Obama is an inveterate vacationer; the claim is often made, but never substantiated.  Even if it were true, I’m not sure what, of itself, it could be taken to suggest about his “seriousness”.

Secondly, you’re on decidedly shaky ground if you write the man off simply by reference to some ill-defined gap between his “words” and what he’s been able to deliver.  No politician is going to look like Mr Fantastic by that standard.  Obama wasn’t dealt much of a hand, either, having inherited two expensive black holes (Iraq/Afghanistan) and a shabby economy. He’s also had to deal with an institutional environment that’s pretty dire in terms of making things happen.  Some commentators actually seem amazed that he’s accomplished anything at all.  Still, I suppose it’s not all that unfair to characterise (for example) the health care and financial sector reforms that he’s managed to push through as feints directed to creating the illusion of action in between trips to Cape Cod.

“Unserious president” is just an asinine label.  Are you really in a position to assess the whole sweep of his presidency?  The vibe I’m getting is that you simply dislike his style, and possibly disagree with some of his policy choices.  That’s fine, but so what?  At times, I found GWB downright laughable, but categorically an “unserious president”?  Of course not.

As for the “joke” business, I assumed Eric was referring to some “leaders of other countries” who were otherwise quite keen on the whole international relations thing.  I’m not convinced that a bit of Reagan-esque sabre rattling would have much effect on Ahmadinejad, or his feelings about the United States.

St. Michael says:

02:33pm | 01/10/10

@bobw: Actually, I’m entitled to write the man off by the difference between his words and what he’s been able to deliver, because that’s the only semi-objective standard by which you can judge any politician.  Politicians promise things during runups to elections.  When they either do not deliver on those promises or run the country so badly they are deemed as incompetent, they are voted out.  You are trying to back off from that truth by suggesting that “no politician delivers on a majority of his promises.”  Say what?

Obama’s problem—and why he’s going to be seen as a Jimmy Carter as a President—is because he overpromised.  He promised to close Guantanamo Bay.  It’s still open.  He promised not to tax anyone who made $250,000 or less.  They’re going to be taxed.  He promised to hold unemployment at 8% if the stimulus was passed.  It isn’t.

The point being: if you overpromise, you blow your own credibility when you fail to make good on those promises.  Obama consciously took on a JFK-style, almost Messianic persona, when he was elected.  His platform for election was “change”.  So far, about the only thing that’s changed is the skin colour of the US President.  All politicians tell lies to get into power, but only the stupid ones tell big lies which they then will have to keep.

bobw says:

04:15am | 02/10/10

@St Michael:  Of course, you’re entitled to do whatever you like, and I suppose that includes glossing my post.  I certainly didn’t suggest that Obama was some kind of promise-keeping demigod.  My main point was that to label him an “unserious president” is profoundly unfair.  I would also say that it’s not sensible to give the “change” rhetoric too much play when assessing his presidency, because it grossly oversimplifies his electoral platform, and also because it lacks content as a tool of analysis.  Why do you think Sarah Palin’s “How’s all that hope-y, change-y stuff going for you?” line tends to fly so well in some quarters?  It’s probably because people predisposed to disliking Obama can project all kinds of disappointed “expectations” onto it.  Obama has actually accomplished plenty during his time in office.  Has he addressed everything he would have liked to?  Of course not - that’s political reality.  Has he been burdened by heightened expectations, and is this in some part a problem of his own making?  Sure.  But do these considerations justify the conclusion that “about the only thing that’s changed is the skin colour of the US President”.  Come on.  To claim that is just silly.

Incidentally, I find it hard to believe that Obama would have “promised not to tax anyone who made $250,000 or less”.  By my reckoning, that would leave a pretty limited pool of taxpayers.

HappyCynic says:

09:26am | 30/09/10

Bitter much?  Labor may be a hopeless bunch but the Liberals are just as useless and a change in government won’t change a thing in Australia.  If you believe the Mad Monk could do better than the Labor nutters then you’re as naive as you are stupid.

Obama has been a weak ineffective POTUS but his biggest problem was he gave people in the US Election - hope for real change.  This is something no politician in the world can ever deliver on.  Combined with the filibustering of the “Blue Dogs” in Congress (Democrats who are social conservatives) and you get a pretty bleak picture of US politics.

Calling Obama a lefty is laughable, if you knew anything about the left/right divisions you would know Obama is technically right wing but he just doesn’t sit with you on the fascist side of the rightwing “ideology”

Personally I think the whole right/left ideology of politics are all the product of lesser minds.

Also name one impeachable offense Obama has committed.  Being hopeless isn’t impeachable.

John says:

11:24pm | 12/10/10

Ahahhahahahaha.