Obama laughed at the notion that his critics like John McCain had pushed him into a stronger position. "I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplore the violence," he said. But the president's statement on Saturday contains no such tough language.
I had written a similar statement here.
It's nice when people with far more credibility than you end up with a similar conclusion. You feel mildly vindicated because writing analyses of these issues is often daunting.
You should read John Dickerson's article.
Posts
I really have to part with you here broseph. I don't really see how the President could've been anymore stern or measured in his reaction short of threatening attack. We can't impose sanctions or invade a country because a few protesters were killed. I think if we committed to that philosophy we'd be overstretched to replicate our policing around the world.
ReplyDeleteSo what do critics (I think they're criticizing I'm not sure) actually want Obama to say? I think if the right stopped criticizing every little thing Obama does and instead focuses on a few issues the public would take them more seriously.
Secondly, a little rallying around our national leader would help now. The nation did it for Bush even though he failed to prevent the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history. Obama can do more with widespread public support.
Wow - couldnt disagree with you more on lots of what you write above.
ReplyDeleteWe can and should impose sanctions on Iran and not just because Iran is terrorizing its own people. Mostly because its nuclear program goes completely unregulated according to IAEA standards and Iran has mocked and rebuffed all international attempts to do so. Obama should use his role as leader of the free world to ramp up momentum and pressure on Iran to unclench its fists. He can and should be doing a lot more. (start by cutting off all petrol imports, or as much as he can. Iran has very little ability to domestically refine oil into petrol and this would be an essential jugular to slash at)
As to your comments about how we should rally around Obama Im not sure I understand why. His popularity is sky-high. Additionally Im not sure if you and I lived through the same eight years between 1/2001 and 1/2009 but the notion that people rallied around Bush is simply false. People tore him apart every chance they had. Even when policies worked (the surge) people refused and still refuse to give Bush any credit. He was a seriously maligned public figure. Obama is the opposite. People need to start to rough him up - not continue their worship.
Those are very good points...
ReplyDeleteBut what I meant was that Bush was extremely popular after 9/11 before becoming a terrible and divisive president, and the left only assailed constantly after he began taking us in a generally terrible direction. Obama, on the other hand, just by the mere fact that he even listens to the opposing party, is a better president already. Yet the right refuses to give an inch, either because they're bitter by defeat or because (like you said) they're losing their centrists and tempered voices.
To rough him up for the sake of having dissent isn't really enough, though. To offer constructive feedback which he already listens to, however, is. Despite recent criticism, it seems he's clearly a more transparent and dynamic figure than Bush ever was, and we know that idelogues are not favored in American politics or extremely heterogeneous societies anyway.
My basic point, and if it coincides with popular opinion isn't important, is that Bush deserved the maligning, and Obama doesn't.