Even I stop waiting for the big comeback this late in the 4th quarter. Can 2016 hurry the fuck up already, so Hillary the Hawk can take care of business? Sigh.
WHY COULDNT OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT BE CLARENCE WILLIAMS III?
QuotePolitico.com
Edit pages pan Obama speech
By: Jonathan Topaz
May 29, 2014 08:00 AM EDT
Editorial boards at three major U.S. newspapers are criticizing President Barack Obama's foreign policy speech at West Point on Wednesday as incomplete and failing to recognize America's international standing.
The New York Times editorial board, often supportive of the White House, wrote that his address "did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left."
Obama "provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years," the Times wrote, "and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world."
The Times also continued its criticism of Obama on transparency on targeted killings and intelligence, saying his call for more transparency was "ludicrous" given the administration's unwillingness to give "even minimal disclosures."
The Wall Street Journal, far more accustomed to criticizing the president on foreign policy, said Obama's speech was marked less by what he said and more by what he left out — the pivot to Asia, relations with Russia, a defense of the administration's Syria policy, a discussion of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and other issues.
"We know that no foreign policy speech can cover the entire world," the Journal concluded. "But listening to Mr. Obama trying to assemble a coherent foreign policy agenda from the record of the past five years was like watching Tom Hanks trying to survive in 'Cast Away': Whatever's left from the wreckage will have to do."
The Washington Post editorial said the president's "binding of U.S. power places Mr. Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II."
"President Obama has retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries," the board said, attacking the president for resorting to rhetoric instead of adjusting policy.
The Post also said that Obama provided "scant comfort" to those concerned about his policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.
I'm so tired of Barack. And even more tired of #Michelle.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2014, 10:08:29 PM
Even I stop waiting for the big comeback this late in the 4th quarter. Can 2016 hurry the fuck up already, so Hillary the Hawk can take care of business? Sigh.
WHY COULDNT OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT BE CLARENCE WILLIAMS III?
CLARENCE THOMAS would be more interesting.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2014, 10:14:31 PM
CLARENCE THOMAS would be more interesting.
If I wanted to see a black mute, I'd watch
Scrooged again.
The best thing about Obama is how much he fires up the Tea Party group and, by extension, the right wing in general. I don't think we really have anything to compare him to because he is the first Democratic president we've had in this age of social media. I will be gladly voting for President Hillary Clinton. I thought Mitt Romney was respectable and I could see myself voting for him, but I don't see anyone else in the Republican party I could vote for in good faith. Certainly not that Trey Gowdy. Can't stand the guy, but the right wing gets all wet for him right now.
Never heard of Gowdy.
Quote from: Jaron on May 29, 2014, 10:26:33 PM
The best thing about Obama is how much he fires up the Tea Party group and, by extension, the right wing in general. I don't think we really have anything to compare him to because he is the first Democratic president we've had in this age of social media. I will be gladly voting for President Hillary Clinton. I thought Mitt Romney was respectable and I could see myself voting for him, but I don't see anyone else in the Republican party I could vote for in good faith. Certainly not that Trey Gowdy. Can't stand the guy, but the right wing gets all wet for him right now.
A Jaron sighting! :o
Quote from: Jaron on May 29, 2014, 10:26:33 PM
I thought Mitt Romney was respectable and I could see myself voting for him
Of course you do, Utahn. :shifty:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2014, 10:16:32 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2014, 10:14:31 PM
CLARENCE THOMAS would be more interesting.
If I wanted to see a black mute, I'd watch Scrooged again.
You know you want to hear him do his oath of office in Gullah. Admit it.
If you win a Nobel Peace Prize before you do anything you dont really have to do anything.
Btw this thread reminds me of a thread we did just before he become President - I think started by Berkut. As I recall the upshot was that people were hopeful but the consensus was that Obama would never live up to the hype and in the end most everyone would be disappointed. Languish is wise.
I have to say he failed even my pessimistic expectations.
I don't quite get what he has done wrong. I understand that people who want to bomb China and Russia are disappointed, but otherwise he seems okay.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
I don't quite get what he has done wrong. I understand that people who want to bomb China and Russia are disappointed, but otherwise he seems okay.
I'd say that, for me, there are two big problems. First, he walked into office knowing that one of the main faults of his predecessor was falling in love with the gadgets and shortcuts to getting desired results, no matter the cost in constitutional erosion. He even articulated the problem well. He then fell in love with the very same things, and became the opposite of the "open and honest" chief executive he promised to be. I know that some of that was probably inevitable, once he really understood the stakes and the alternatives, but he still talks the talk. Second, he was shit at getting actual legislation passed (yeah, I know he had Reid and Pelosi as anchors, but still...) even when he had majorities and even a supermajority in the Senate.
Some of his policies have been bad, but that i don't hold against him as much; I have thought every president has had some bad policies. What I hold against him is that he is one of the smartest presidents we have ever had, and has failed to use any of those smarts.
Was he ever a smart politician?
Quote from: mongers on May 30, 2014, 08:35:00 PM
Was he ever a smart politician?
His career was far too short to know.
Yes let's take our opinions from two liberal papers and a Murdoch rag.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2014, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
I don't quite get what he has done wrong. I understand that people who want to bomb China and Russia are disappointed, but otherwise he seems okay.
I'd say that, for me, there are two big problems. First, he walked into office knowing that one of the main faults of his predecessor was falling in love with the gadgets and shortcuts to getting desired results, no matter the cost in constitutional erosion. He even articulated the problem well. He then fell in love with the very same things, and became the opposite of the "open and honest" chief executive he promised to be. I know that some of that was probably inevitable, once he really understood the stakes and the alternatives, but he still talks the talk. Second, he was shit at getting actual legislation passed (yeah, I know he had Reid and Pelosi as anchors, but still...) even when he had majorities and even a supermajority in the Senate.
Some of his policies have been bad, but that i don't hold against him as much; I have thought every president has had some bad policies. What I hold against him is that he is one of the smartest presidents we have ever had, and has failed to use any of those smarts.
I was really thinking in terms of international policies, not domestic.
Internationally, it seems it is easy to identify some mistakes. Syria's red line for instance. But I don't think any of those really do any meaningful damage to the US. Probably the biggest change his administration has brought in terms of international relations is that the US is now much more popular than it was under Bush. Obama may be the best presidential ambassador we have ever had.
Obama had an international policy?
It is true that Obama was much more popular initially. But much like his Nobel prize he didnt actually do anything to earn that. And as time went by he still didnt.
Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.
Invisible pivots are the best kind. They sound decisive without changing anything.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 31, 2014, 02:32:42 PM
Obama had an international policy?
Can speaking in platitudes and not doing much be considered a policy? In any case, it is working.
Quote
It is true that Obama was much more popular initially. But much like his Nobel prize he didnt actually do anything to earn that. And as time went by he still didnt.
He is still wildly popular, at least in comparison to the previous president.
I like his shooting browns with hellfires from Drones.
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2014, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.
Invisible pivots are the best kind. They sound decisive without changing anything.
Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2014, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.
Invisible pivots are the best kind. They sound decisive without changing anything.
Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?
I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical. The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 31, 2014, 09:52:25 PM
He is still wildly popular, at least in comparison to the previous president.
If you set the bar low enough anyone can be great.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2014, 05:48:40 AM
I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical. The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.
:lol: darn it :cry:
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2014, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2014, 05:48:40 AM
I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical. The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.
:lol: darn it :cry:
I disagree with Admiral Grumblermoto; there's a distinct difference between business as usual, and a specific series of policy initiatives designed to enhance, reinforce and escalate such business, both for our allies' consumption as well as our adversaries.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2014, 12:22:06 PM
I disagree with Admiral Grumblermoto; there's a distinct difference between business as usual, and a specific series of policy initiatives designed to enhance, reinforce and escalate such business, both for our allies' consumption as well as our adversaries.
I'd like to hear about that, if you don't mind. I'll be honest and say that most of what I've heard about the pivot is incidental PR, so I don't know how much it's flim-flam (as grumbler alleges) and how much substance there is.
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2014, 05:48:40 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2014, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.
Invisible pivots are the best kind. They sound decisive without changing anything.
Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?
I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical. The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.
There have been some actions that reflect the Pacific shift.
Manila Looks to Subic Bay to Counter Chinese Moves in Region
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324665604579078833308333984 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324665604579078833308333984)
Pentagon seeks return to long-abandoned military port in Vietnam
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/pentagon-cam-ranh-bay-vietnam.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/pentagon-cam-ranh-bay-vietnam.html)
US Marine Force in Darwin, Australia Boosts To 1,000 Next Year; Rise To MEU Force Proceeds
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/us-marine-force-in-darwin-australia-boosts-to-1000-next-year-boost-to-meu-force-proceeds/ (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/us-marine-force-in-darwin-australia-boosts-to-1000-next-year-boost-to-meu-force-proceeds/)
Quotethe depth and significance of the U.S. strategic relationship with the city-state now exceeds that of formal allies such as Thailand and the Philippines. Singapore is now the key logistics and maintenance hub for Navy and Air Force operations in the South China Sea, and is the critical gateway for the U.S. presence into the eastern Indian Ocean. For its part, the Singapore government looks to its security relationship with the United States as a critical force for regional stability.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-military-bases-the-asia-pacific-strategic-asset-or-10483 (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-military-bases-the-asia-pacific-strategic-asset-or-10483)
Quote from: citizen k on June 01, 2014, 02:28:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2014, 05:48:40 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2014, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.
Invisible pivots are the best kind. They sound decisive without changing anything.
Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?
I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical. The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.
There have been some actions that reflect the Pacific shift.
Manila Looks to Subic Bay to Counter Chinese Moves in Region
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324665604579078833308333984 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324665604579078833308333984)
Pentagon seeks return to long-abandoned military port in Vietnam
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/pentagon-cam-ranh-bay-vietnam.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/pentagon-cam-ranh-bay-vietnam.html)
US Marine Force in Darwin, Australia Boosts To 1,000 Next Year; Rise To MEU Force Proceeds
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/us-marine-force-in-darwin-australia-boosts-to-1000-next-year-boost-to-meu-force-proceeds/ (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/us-marine-force-in-darwin-australia-boosts-to-1000-next-year-boost-to-meu-force-proceeds/)
Quotethe depth and significance of the U.S. strategic relationship with the city-state now exceeds that of formal allies such as Thailand and the Philippines. Singapore is now the key logistics and maintenance hub for Navy and Air Force operations in the South China Sea, and is the critical gateway for the U.S. presence into the eastern Indian Ocean. For its part, the Singapore government looks to its security relationship with the United States as a critical force for regional stability.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-military-bases-the-asia-pacific-strategic-asset-or-10483 (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-military-bases-the-asia-pacific-strategic-asset-or-10483)
Those are almost all continuations of previous US policy:
From the LA Times article:
QuoteU.S. warships have called regularly at other Vietnamese ports since the guided missile frigate Vandergrift made a port call in Ho Chi Minh City in November 2003.
Obama wasn't present in 2003
The Darwin force is new, but 2200 troops doesn't represent a national "pivot." There are that many Marines taking a dump at any moment in Camp Lejune.
The Singapore base was established in 1992, coincident with the US withdrawal from Subic Bay.
The WSJ article is not visible to me, but the US has been visiting Subic Bay since the visiting forces agreement was signed in 1999. An increased presence there isn't a major shift. A carrier battle group there would be a major shift. But here, again, it was the Bush administration that shifted a carrier battle group to the Pacific. That's more of a pivot than just saying the word "pivot."
You are crying in the rain if you think Grumbler will admit he's wrong.
QuoteThere are that many Marines taking a dump at any moment in Camp Lejune.
I want to learn more.
Off to Google!
Quote from: Jaron on May 29, 2014, 10:26:33 PM
The best thing about Obama is how much he fires up the Tea Party group and, by extension, the right wing in general. I don't think we really have anything to compare him to because he is the first Democratic president we've had in this age of social media. I will be gladly voting for President Hillary Clinton. I thought Mitt Romney was respectable and I could see myself voting for him, but I don't see anyone else in the Republican party I could vote for in good faith. Certainly not that Trey Gowdy. Can't stand the guy, but the right wing gets all wet for him right now.
Why would you vote for Hilary Clinton?
She have never run anything, until she became Secretary of State, and we know how well that ended.
I'm tired of people voting for candidates that have no experience at all running any kind of businesses or organizations.
Quote from: Siege on June 02, 2014, 07:47:10 AM
I'm tired of people voting for candidates that have no experience at all running any kind of businesses or organizations.
If you're tired you should take a nap.
Quote from: Siege on June 02, 2014, 07:47:10 AM
I'm tired of people voting for candidates that have no experience at all running any kind of businesses or organizations.
What sort of organizations or businesses would qualify one for office? After all Hoover was a genius at running organizations but was struggled as President.
Not disagreeing with you necessarily just curious. Having former business people running the government seems dangerous as well with all the corruption currently going on. Business interests may not be the same as national interests.
Obama is the first President to even attempt to implement a foreign policy for a multi-polar world. It may look messy because the nature of the world is messy. It may sound un-impressive, because Obama apparently has no Kennan or Dulles to come up with snappy taglines and because despite being a good public speaker, he isn't a very good rhetorician.
Overall I think the policy is sound, with the following criticisms:
1) Obama just doesn't seem to have good rapport with key foreign leaders and thus the personal side of diplomacy has suffered, a kind of parallel to his toxic relations to Congress.
2) TPP is critical to the pivot and yet Obama seems AWOL or at least curiously detached on this. Perhaps there is a lot of behind the scenes activity going on I don't see or perhaps Obama is being intentionally quiet as a kind of reverse psychology with Congress. But it does seem to fit the troubling pattern of announcing big initiatives and then disappearing for the follow-through.
3). Syria was botched. Optimal policy would have been to give behind the scenes support to favored rebel groups from the get-go, and then used the chem episode as the pretext for no fly. An alternative would have been to state clearly up front that US is staying out unless some vital interest becomes implicated and then stick to that. What Obama did - stay out, then state a red line, then back away from the redline when condition was triggered - was the worst possible approach.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
Obama is the first President to even attempt to implement a foreign policy for a multi-polar world. It may look messy because the nature of the world is messy.
Its not so much messy and unrecognizable.
Quote from: Siege on June 02, 2014, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: Jaron on May 29, 2014, 10:26:33 PM
The best thing about Obama is how much he fires up the Tea Party group and, by extension, the right wing in general. I don't think we really have anything to compare him to because he is the first Democratic president we've had in this age of social media. I will be gladly voting for President Hillary Clinton. I thought Mitt Romney was respectable and I could see myself voting for him, but I don't see anyone else in the Republican party I could vote for in good faith. Certainly not that Trey Gowdy. Can't stand the guy, but the right wing gets all wet for him right now.
Why would you vote for Hilary Clinton?
She have never run anything, until she became Secretary of State, and we know how well that ended.
I'm tired of people voting for candidates that have no experience at all running any kind of businesses or organizations.
She was elected Senator :secret:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
despite being a good public speaker, he isn't a very good rhetorician.
Agreed.
Quote from: Valmy on June 02, 2014, 10:41:00 AM
What sort of organizations or businesses would qualify one for office? After all Hoover was a genius at running organizations but was struggled as President.
Not to mention MacNamara.
I don't think there's any particular criteria that makes for a good executive and, as we see often in the UK, some people have a limit and every department will have a culture that can defeat people or force them to conform. Then there are exceptions who would be clearly excellent in any department or as PM (KEN CLARKE! :weep:). I always remember Estelle Morris resigning after a while as Education Secretary, she said she didn't feel she was up to it and had felt more effective as a junior Education minister.
I agree with Minsky, broadly. I think Obama's been in a difficult position in terms of personal relations though. I mean he got the fag-end of Brown and Sarko (both of whom wanted to 'guide' him on the world stage), then the uncertainty of Hollande and Cameron (one's the most unpopular President ever, the other couldn't win a Parliamentary vote on foreign policy) and a merry-go-round of Japanese, Australian and Italian Prime Ministers. The truth is the only leader anywhere near as solid in their position as Obama is Merkel - and unfortunately know amount of personal relationship could have been saved from Germany's NSA-tantrums.
QuoteAgreed.
Ish. I think he does a great if easily hackneyed line of rhetoric - normally two false arguments and then he'll split down the middle. But he doesn't do soundbites very well. One of the things I like most about Obama - after 17 years of New Labour and their acolytes - is that he avoids them and is a politician capable of using verbs (see Labour's latest slogan 'Hardworking Britain Better Off' or Ed Miliband constantly repeating 'One nation' as an answer).
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that that's what we'll move towards generally (they're very different but I'd use Nigel Farage as an example). I think soundbites and the sort of TV-rhetoric are made for a mass media age and they seem a bit more transparent than when Clinton and Blair were doing them so effortlessly.
I remember wondering (maybe here?) in 2010 if the internet may cause oratory to have a comeback as opposed to rhetoric. If you can go to Youtube and watch the speech online ('a more perfect union' has over 7 million views, even Brown's Citizens United speech got to 200 000), or follow someone live-tweeting a speech, or read someone you generally like analyse a speech - then I don't think the focus on 10-second lines that can be repeated on evening news matter so much. Which means politicians can use verbs :)