Obama’s Caution on Domestic Issues Contradicts his Attitude Overseas (Updated: Maybe Not)
[Guest post by DRJ]
Barack Obama met with his core economic advisers today in Florida and then announced he would refrain from offering his plan until Washington has time to formulate a bipartisan solution:
“Obama said the immediate need is to get the capital markets working properly again so the economy can continue to hum. But he resisted offering a detailed blueprint, saying he wanted to let officials at the Treasury Department, the Fed, and in Congress work on a bipartisan solution.”
Astonishing. Obama declines to talk about domestic issues to avoid interfering with Washington’s solution but he has no problem directly addressing America’s foreign affairs with Iraqi leaders, thereby violating the golden rule of American politics:
“By trying to second-guess the present administration in its negotiations with Iraq, Obama ignored a golden rule of American politics. I first learned about that rule from Senator Edward Kennedy more than 30 years ago. During a visit to Tehran, Kennedy received a few Iranian reporters for a poolside chat. The big question at the time was negotiations between Washington and Tehran about massive arms contracts. When we asked Kennedy what he thought of those negotiations, his answer was simple: He would not comment on negotiations between his government and a foreign power, especially when abroad. That, he said, was one of the golden rules of American politics.
A few years later, I spent a day with Ronald Reagan during his visit to Iran. I asked what he thought of the strategic arms limitation talks between the U.S. and the USSR. He echoed Kennedy’s golden rule: He would not comment on his government’s negotiations with a foreign power, especially when abroad.
A couple of years ago, I ran into that golden rule again. At a meeting with Senator Hillary Clinton in Washington, I asked what she thought of the Bush administration’s negotiations with the Iraqis concerning security cooperation. She said she would not second-guess the president and would wait for the outcome of the negotiations. In a statesmanlike manner, Senator Clinton reminded me of the golden rule—one that is common to all mature democracies where the opposition is loyal and constitutional.
Today, Senator Obama is the leader of a loyal opposition in the United States, not the chief of an insurrection or a revolutionary uprising. What we are witnessing in the U.S. is an election, not an insurrection or a coronation, even less a regime change.
Obama should not have discussed the government-to-government negotiations with the Iraqis. That he did, surprised the Iraqis no end. Raising the issue with them, especially the way he did, meant that he was telling them that he did not trust his own government. The Iraqis could not be blamed for wondering why they should trust a government that is not trusted by the leader of its own loyal opposition. (There was also no point in raising the matter, because Obama did not know the content of the negotiations.)”
Reticent at home, outspoken abroad. Obama proves again he is a citizen of the world.
UPDATE: ABC’s Jake Tapper reports Bush Administration officials and Senators Reed and Hagel support Obama’s denials regarding the Iraqi story. Allahpundit at Hot Air tries to untangle the conflicting stories.
— DRJ
It’s all about nuance. Change and nuance. It’s a liberal thing. You wouldn’t understand.
huey (3990bf) — 9/19/2008 @ 1:43 pmSounds like Obama drew a mighty breath and voted “Present.”
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 9/19/2008 @ 1:46 pmLeadership.
JD (5f0e11) — 9/19/2008 @ 1:50 pmBe a man, for once in your life, and do something. The same guy who just spent the last two days screeching about how the evil GOP has sent the economy to hell, and now this latest abstention.
Wuuuuuuussssssss!
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/19/2008 @ 2:01 pmJake Tapper has a different take on this according to Bush sources. AP posted on it at HA as well:
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 9/19/2008 @ 2:08 pmtapper
“Obama said the immediate need is to get the capital markets working properly again so the economy can continue to hum. But he resisted offering a detailed blueprint, saying he wanted to let officials at the Treasury Department, the Fed, and in Congress work on a bipartisan solution.”
— Uh, isn’t the Messiah still a member of Congress? I mean, I know that his office may have been gathering some cobwebs lately, and his staffers — including the females who are paid LESS than John McCain’s female staffers AND are paid LESS than their male counterparts within Obama’s office — are probably sitting around getting bored (and not using his Senate office for campaign work; I dare you to prove otherwise!), but don’t you think that he could put them to work coming up with something — anything — substantive on this issue?
Icy Truth (3b614c) — 9/19/2008 @ 2:22 pmThanks for the other sources, VOR2. I’ll update the post.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 9/19/2008 @ 2:52 pmvoiceofreason2 #5: Thanks for the link to the Tapper article.
Icy Truth #6:
Wow! That raises two questions: 1. Could you provide a link to a web page with information supporting that statement, and 2. How are McCain’s female staffers paid compared to McCain’s male staffers [is there a pun here?]?
Ira (28a423) — 9/19/2008 @ 2:54 pmThanks.
“including the females who are paid LESS than John McCain’s female staffers AND are paid LESS than their male counterparts within Obama’s office”
Bros before hos!
daleyrocks (faf71b) — 9/19/2008 @ 3:15 pm“Bros before hos!”
nice.
no (6b0755) — 9/19/2008 @ 3:22 pmChrist, I hope not… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 9/19/2008 @ 3:27 pmScott – I now see the problem, but I’ll stick with my conclusion.
daleyrocks (faf71b) — 9/19/2008 @ 3:59 pmIn the last mid-term election Dems refused to offer positions on the issues, they declined even to acknowledge what the issues were. Dems decided they were going to win if they kept bashing Bush about the war, and pointed to GOP homosexual foot tapping, or the semblance of homo flirtation. It worked so well Dems took charge of both the House and Senate.
Obama is just following along the same lines that proved successful 2 years ago. He’s convinced he can sell himself to the voters without ever revealing who he is or what he stands for, if anything.
Are American voters stupid enough to buy a pig in a poke? We shall soon see, 44 days to go.
Ropelight (b9f273) — 9/19/2008 @ 4:04 pm#6, Icy Truth –
I hope you understand that bolding something and linking something are two different things, and that one is taken much more seriously than the other.
Leviticus (41975c) — 9/19/2008 @ 4:07 pmHussein O has learned the lessons from Harry Reid, “No one knows what to do” so we’re getting the he** out of town for a couple of months.
Sad for the democrats that GWB asked them (in 2003) to fix it before it happened and the democrats in congress went on vacation for 5 years.
McCain told them to fix it in 2005 or we would see this exact mess. The democrats have been doing laps around the pool for three years.
I guess Dusty Reid was right in a way, no democrat knows what to do.
Scrapiron (d671ab) — 9/19/2008 @ 4:38 pmAnd, let’s not forget that the Chairman of the House Cmte on Banking was The Ones new-found friend Jim Leach during this time, until he was replaced by Barney Frank.
I wonder how much money Leach got from FM2?
Another Drew (909672) — 9/19/2008 @ 4:55 pmJohn McCain Is Not Qualified to Be President
Since before 1844 central banks have been in the business of managing financial crises. That’s what they do. Milton Friedman is spinning in his grave. The prevention of large-scale bank failures–“bailouts,” in McCain’s terms–is an essential part of responsibly managing the money supply.
John McCain does not know that. And nobody working for John McCain knows that:
John McCain: Finally, the Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation. It needs to get out of the business of bailouts. The Fed needs to return to protecting the purchasing power of the dollar. A strong dollar will reduce energy and food prices. It will stimulate sustainable economic growth and get this economy moving again…
September 19, 2008 at 09:51 AM in Economics, Economics: Federal Reserve, Economics: Finance, Moral Responsibility, Politics, Sorting: Front Page, Sorting: Pieces of the Occasion, Utter Stupidity | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/106400/33633714
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John McCain Is Not Qualified to Be President:
Comments
I do not think that the word “bailout” means what McCain thinks it means.
Posted by: Bruce Bartlett | September 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
a. sleep (ede69b) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:12 pm[A]s the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first.
…
Senator Christopher J. Dodd [said] the congressional leaders were told “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”
We’re all in this together
a. sleep (ede69b) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:17 pmI know better than to do this but….
a.sleep:
Just who, in your esteemed opinion, is qualified to be President of the United States?
Please list those qualifications of your selected candidate.
Another Drew (909672) — 9/19/2008 @ 5:31 pm#18 is it not obvious that only the magic negro and his running mate joe biden are qualified to be POTUS, among those currently running? I like how tough twat Obama is telling his legions of cretins to get in people’s faces. Any of those arrogant pricks try that with me and at the least get a knuckle sandwich. They’re all pussies who are bold in a mob or sneaking around, just like the islamofascist scum. Shout down your opponent or flood phone lines with their libtard spewing to prevent anyone questioning the Great Mixed-Breed Anus’ past deeds and associations. Once again, libs only believe in their own free speech. Since the media is so overwhelmingly in the tank for Obama, why don’t people who loathe the anointed one and the duplicitous media just boycott the advertisers? You know- the people who pay jerkoff Olberdouche $4 mil annually.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 9/19/2008 @ 7:21 pmDo you really think Obama believes the money supply means something different than what comes out of the nearest ATM? He’s the man who wanted to more than double capital gains tax rates before realizing it might have a tiny impact on investments. D’oh. A financial genius he’s not.
daleyrocks (faf71b) — 9/19/2008 @ 9:09 pm“Obama doesn’t know what the hell is going on and will get to you later on that.”
His Democrat friends are circling the wagons and talking about how bipartisan they are when they know in fact they are to blame. Yes, Bush did try to reform the agencies but should have pushed harder instead of giving up and saying “Wow, we have more homeowners than ever.”
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/19/2008 @ 9:34 pm“… A financial genius he’s not.”
and Harry Reid, Searchlight’s dim-bulb, wants to get Congress out of town because, “…we have no idea what to do…”.
Why do I feel so confident in the direction that our leaders in Congress (D) are taking us?
Another Drew (909672) — 9/19/2008 @ 9:37 pmComment by Patricia — 9/19/2008 @ 9:34 pm
I’m not saying it’s right, but at a certain point, you just don’t want to fight over bs anymore.
Another Drew (909672) — 9/19/2008 @ 9:44 pmOn one side, you have the President who is trying to keep the country from being attacked again.
And, on the other side, you have career legislators who have never done anything more difficult than determining what color upholstery to order on their new govt-paid luxury car.
It is truly a wonder that anyone really wants the job.
In today’s market, I doubt if you could even get John Nance Garner to go for it.
Plus Biden thinks Rangel is unpatriotic for not paying those taxes on his condo income, but would never say so in public.
daleyrocks (faf71b) — 9/19/2008 @ 9:51 pmLeviticus — I hope you understand that bolding something and linking something are two different things, and that one is taken much more seriously than the other.
— I hope you understand that I don’t care how you react to my posts, and that whether or not anybody else takes them seriously is also something that I do not worry about.
Icy Truth (0b0c9a) — 9/19/2008 @ 9:59 pmAh, Icy… I am hurt (cries…)
Another Drew (909672) — 9/19/2008 @ 10:09 pm#8 – Ira
Since you asked nicely, here is a link that should answer your questions: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdockonline12.html It gives exact numbers for the pay of staffers in both Obama’s and McCain’s offices.
Icy Truth (0b0c9a) — 9/19/2008 @ 10:11 pmHey now, Drew . . . I appreciate being read, and I especially like it when someone enjoys my stabs at humor. All I meant was that I’m not going to worry if someone questions the validity of facts in my statements. If that sounds arrogant — oh well. I’m not interested in expending energy to convince people of things that they are perfectly capable of looking up on their own.
Icy Truth (0b0c9a) — 9/19/2008 @ 10:22 pmHello from Fort Smith Arkansas, the current immigrant capital of the nation.
It may be of interest that there are people going around here registering people to vote who are NOT U.S. Citizens. AND, they’re telling them to vote for Barak Hussein Obama.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. Don’t you have to be a U.S. Citizen to vote?
They’re registering both legal “green card” holders and illegals.
I have a friend in Oklahoma who told me they’re doing this outside the Tyson factory in Heavener, OK also and reportedly telling them that only Obama will ever let them stay here.
Ansersen (b7f6c3) — 9/19/2008 @ 10:26 pmIra –
Having trouble with the link. Here’s the story:
“Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Aug. 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: “I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.”
Obama’s campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading “Fighting for Pay Equity,” the women’s issues page laments that, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…”
Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.
A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. “We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible,” its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm’s official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.
The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months’ service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year’s worth of Senate employees’ paychecks should look.
Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama’s highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
Again, on average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.
Obama responded Aug. 31 to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin “seems like a very engaging person,” Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. “But I’ve got to say, she’s opposed — like John McCain is — to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make much sense to me.”
Obama’s criticism notwithstanding, McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.
McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain.
How could this be?
One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain’s highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women — much more than men — for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.
If anyone on McCain’s Senate staff is unhappy, McCain’s male staffers might complain they seem to get a slightly raw deal.
In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama — at the expense of the women who work for him — quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.
Icy Truth (0b0c9a) — 9/19/2008 @ 10:26 pmIcy
Another bit of excellent work…
To our friend in Ft.Smith…
Another Drew (909672) — 9/19/2008 @ 10:38 pmIt sounds like the little squirrels from ACORN are busy in your part of the country; and,
Yes, you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote.
Go to: scrippsnews.com/node/36234
That’s where the original post of that story by DEROY MURDOCK, Scripps Howard News Service is located.
Icy Truth (0b0c9a) — 9/19/2008 @ 10:45 pm#28 – Ansersen
It may be of interest that there are people going around here registering people to vote who are NOT U.S. Citizens. AND, they’re telling them to vote for Barak Hussein Obama.
— Business as usual for the Democratic Party and the (now branching out) Chicago machine. It’s nothing new. When my mother was attending nursing school and living on the south side of Chicago, in 1960, two Democratic precinct workers came to her apartment door and offered to “take care of any problems” she might have had with anyone in the neighborhood, in exchange for her commitment to vote for JFK. She was going to vote for him anyway, but this illustrates how they will do ANYTHING to achieve and maintain power.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
— It’s “Barack,” not “Barak”.
Don’t you have to be a U.S. Citizen to vote?
Icy Truth (0b0c9a) — 9/19/2008 @ 11:01 pm— Well, each state has it’s own rules, but yeah, they all require that you be a US citizen.
I recommend stocking up on bandaids while you can….
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/19/2008 @ 11:04 pmJAR Jr. strikes again.
Icy Truth (0b0c9a) — 9/19/2008 @ 11:09 pmOhhh snap! You push right through nap time to come up with that one?
Bob Loblaw (6d485c) — 9/19/2008 @ 11:51 pmWho the hell said I was talking about you? Having a little ego problem today, are we?
Icy Truth (e6cefc) — 9/20/2008 @ 12:16 amhttp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/
OK, a correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of <http: Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.
Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:
John McCain : “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”
So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!
to whom it may concern (8cf93b) — 9/20/2008 @ 7:12 amHere’s your link, Leviticus:
Icy Truth (fbc22c) — 9/20/2008 @ 8:24 amThen there’s Obama’s record on equal pay within his own Senate office http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdockonline12.html The hypocrisy never ends.
“Having a little ego problem today, are we?”
Icy – That’s not just a problem today, that an everyday occurrence. It’s always all about Bob, but he doesn’t see it as a problem. For him it’s not a problem, it’s a feature.
daleyrocks (faf71b) — 9/20/2008 @ 9:08 amIcy Truth ## 29, 31 and 37: Thanks!
Ira (28a423) — 9/20/2008 @ 11:14 amYour welcome, Ira.
Icy Truth (ab2f41) — 9/20/2008 @ 1:36 pm30 ansersen-
Sounds like something the blog watchdog hattie out your way would definitely be interested in, but I don’t know if the proprietor is healthy enough at this time. http://www.watchdoghattie.blogspot.com
I’ve heard plenty of stories of voting irregularities here in S. Fla. Plenty of illegals manage to vote for democrats. Then there are all those nursing home residents, some with Alzheimer’s, who are assisted in actually voting. At least these people are still alive, unlike the voters in Chicago and Philly graveyards.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 9/20/2008 @ 3:41 pm