Posted by
Toddy Littman on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:00:00 AM
Obama's Promises, a Continuing Campaign
The
most interesting add on to these "Obaomises," that allows for
vagueness, per se, is "save or..." In the past it Presidents, and even
Obama during the campaign, promise or claim they will, or legislation
does "create jobs," the catch phrase for people who are out of work.
But
now it seems it's good enough to just "save jobs," or so it appears
Obama wants to convince us, which to me is disrespect and admission
that nothing is going to be produced by the stimulus, or that Obama
knows it may not be, and thus, to cover his own a** versus keep a
promise, and this appears the only reason "save or " is added in before
"create jobs."
This way those unemployed can complain all they
want, and if 2 years from now we hear, "the stimulus bill saved 4
million jobs," we are actually still at the same numbers of employed 2
years from now that we have right now. To some that may be a step in
the right direction, granted, but, to spend 800 billion dollars just to
"save" jobs, well, that's a really weak weak message and is in no way
showing care or consideration for "the little guy," the people Obama's
party claims to represent by default.
Also this isn't a real confidence builder to just "save" jobs.
Obama No Longer Delivers Hope, He Has No Plan
I'd
prefer a President who after winning in November and having 2 months to
perfect 2 years of campaign promises in the form of actual plans, and
consistently tells us he is going to "create jobs" from when he is
elected President of the United States to after the campaign is over
and he is President of the United States. The idea that something
actually continued is where we understand it has been and will be an
act of governance and not just a campaign promise, a means of getting
votes by claiming to deliver appeasement that never materializes.
Something containing a statement akin to "this job creation could be
upwards of 10 million jobs in the next 4 years and may exceed that" is
to at least attempt to deliver on the promises and anticipation of
those who voted for him, and a way to keep the momentum alive, the
enduring spirit of America's "can do" attitude.
Please do
understand his win was much by appearances, and not by content, not by
substance, as is apparent in a lack of any plan with what to do with
the detainees after closing GITMO. Sure he made good on a promise but
there is no plan to make sure the result is no worse than the
circumstance changed in relation to national security concerns. Thus is
the promise actually kept? I mean the one with the Chief Justice of the
United States Supreme Court swearing in our President, for that's the
paramount promise now isn't it. And how is any of it kept without using
those 2 months to perfect plans that were meant to be where the
promises derived from, in order to know that though keeping a promise
other factors will not be placed in limbo, to be unknown, and appearing
to not have been considered.
With the economy, the current
language Obama is using in speeches doesn't encourage us, and this is
no good. We are the engine that drives all their paychecks, politician
and business leader alike, by taxes or profits. At this point saying
"catastrophe" in the same sentence as "economic" suggests being on the
brink of an edge to something that, if we exceed that edge, will
destroy something so important to our well being it will effect us all
greatly and with great harm. This does not spur consumer confidence,
and appears to be the primary reason people are hoarding their cash and
buying into the precious metals market. What's worse is the noticed but
unexplained delay in signing the bill after it has passed both Houses
of Congress, and, how this has to be done with great fanfare while on
the road selling the bill. What is the point of spending the jet fuel
to sell something that's already passed and you are signing into law
but to spend precious tax dollars, our money, for the right of
grandstanding, especially after making the "urgent" bill wait 4 days to
be signed?
To illustrate the point and difference in appearances
I am getting at and how these things done by the President of The
United States effect us, let's look at President Bush. 911 happened,
for and by whatever means. President Bush has often been criticized by
Obama for afterward telling us "go out and shop." The apparently missed
point behind Bush's directive statement at the time appears obvious to
every other American: To send a message to those who attacked these
towers, the message that destroying these buildings that effected some
20% of our economy will not detour us from living out our lives in
prosperity, in freedom and we will carry on to show tribute to those
whose lives were lost, to assure they did not die in vane by
demonstrating to those watching "This did not phase us." Of course this
shopping also helped to offset the loss of economic activity caused by
the utter evaporation of the business that took place in these towers,
and, by our going out and shopping, showing no fear, we showed unity, a
unity we have lost a mere 7 years later. So much accomplished in one
statement and not by the President but by us, in the President's
ability to understand our need as a nation and lead us to achieve that
end.
The Economy as a Terrorist
With
this in mind let's personify the intangible economic collapse as a
tangible "enemy" for a moment because the event has terrorized us. Do
we admit this has brought us to the brink of "catastrophe?" --
announcing to the world at large, who we are asking to buy our debt and
invest in America that we are at the brink of crossing a line that
could be the end of the United States of America? "Catastrophe" says
that. Or, do we build an entirely different scenario through public
statement via President of The United States that, on its face seems
impossible, that some may even call a lie, but as President of the
United States with the Bully Pulpit and Air Force 1 at his disposal,
President Obama can make sure to bring the population to achieve? If he
were to actually communicate the goal this way:
"It is very
possible to create 10 million jobs by spending 200 billion dollars a
year in the new recovery plan that I submitted to Congress, in fact we
may be able to almost eradicate unemployment in 4 years. After 2 years
of working on this plan throughout the campaign, a plan that laser
targets those exact deeds in our economy that can, will, and do
stimulate job creation, and spending the last 2 months perfecting every
detail, I can assure you that as you helped me become the first
African-American President of The United States for all Americans I
know for an absolute fact: Yes we can recover!"
Can you predict
the future? Much can happen in 4 years, and anything to the detriment
of such an aggressive economic recovery plan would be easily dismissed
by us as "well he tried" because we see him doing more than just
"saving private jobs" but trying to create jobs for us, to grow the
economy and re-assert our influence over the entire world, which is
what protects us from the likes of Hugo Chavez, North Korea, Al Qaeda,
Akmadinajad, and others. Doing this would be to genuinely show "a
change in Washington" by actually showing an interest in carrying
himself and carrying on his activities in a manner that helps us lead
ourselves, our nation's people and government, out of this economic
turmoil as one nation in unity of purpose and without the ideological
implications that Nancy Pelosi makes sure are front and center of her
every act and deed. That my friends is a President who is a leader and
leading this nation, and I would hope this is the case no matter what
his race, religion or creed.
When you as President of the United
States of America regularly remind the people of the nation by public
statement, "you voted for me, you voted for change" you charge yourself
with an obligation, a duty, to deliver more than keeping the status
quo, which is not what is happening by merely saving 4 million jobs,
assuming we don't lose more than that in the next 4 years. See, that's
something I wouldn't have even begun to consider if I knew government
interference in our economy is actually intending to "create 10 million
jobs," and has a well thought out plan to do so.
Sure we may not
the goal but we'll get as damn close as we can, especially if we act
with that same initiative that achieved his election maybe, just maybe,
we could have done it. What has been said and done so far is a
squandering of the political capital Obama likes to remind us of in
telling us "you elected me, you voted for change." 59 million people
did not, 69 million people did, and thus the marker, of what "change"
means hasn't been demarcated in such a manner as to be a mandate of any
significant order. But President Obama seems to forget this and only
remember the electoral college numbers, thinking these reflect the
popular vote irrespective of his liberal friends wanting to abolish the
electoral college system after George Bush won his first term.
Something to Remember
Understand
that this power of perception is something President Obama and his
team, who campaigned for 2 years, is well aware of, the speech "just
words," that Obama delivered, emphasizes this point rather well (even
if a designed speech and plagiarized from another democrat and their
campaign), and yet, to look at both extremes of a spectrum of
possibilities, in actual governance....
--Either Obama's team is suddenly oblivious and inept in understanding the power of perception....
--Or, what Obama is saying now is as optimistic as Obama can be because things are actually worse than we've been told.
These
are the more extreme public perceptions which is particularly strong
with such a polarized body politic, and neither message instills
confidence in Obama, which means it does not instill confidence in
America, particularly abroad.
Please Have A Mind Of Your Own
Often
the defenders of the economic stimulus, who aren't in "religious zealot
mode," will start defending Obama and the stimulus by repeating things
someone else said, quoting this or that report, website, etc., let
alone name calling, but always without showing they have a mind of
their own. This indicates they have a wavering belief in the stimulus
themselves, for they aren't citing their internal reasons for believing
in this situation but the ones others told them, and, as a general
rule, will claim anything to the contrary that anyone else says is
doing is the same thing -- projecting this citing of others operation
is everyone else's admission they don't know anything, and thus dilute
the meaning of everyone else's opposing point of view in an attempt to
render these opposing views equally meaningless, at least that appears
to be the strategy to defend Obama and the "stimulus."
Conclusion and What I Hope For
I
merely want to see us, We the People, the American population, not end
up settling for less particularly after Candidate Obama promised so
much to achieve the office. He likely cannot and will not be able to
fulfill most of his promises. For instance the lack of willingness of
the entire Obama cabinet to openly discuss the vetting process that
resulted in 5 nominees with income tax issues, is a lack of fulfillment
of "transparency" in and of itself. Reporters were outwardly frustrated
with Gibbs consistent reply to every question about the vetting
process, "I'm not going to spend all day looking in the rear view
mirror," to eventually tell him "we're asking you to talk about the
vetting process, we want to know about it," to which he replied again
the same apparently patented answer.
The following link is where
I posted the observations of the daily press briefing of February 4th
because I found it so intriguing to see the Press finally pushing back:
http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.46.7
Thank you very much for reading this,
Toddy Littman
Director, ChangingWind.Org