Sunday, March 08, 2009

Incoming

The attacks on President Obama from the Republican Right have been tame so far, if the news of escalation is to be believed:

Republicans are on the offensive against the popular chief executive at a point when they lack a chief spokesman and remain divided among figures offering competing visions for the party's future, including radio personality Rush Limbaugh and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele. But the party has unified around the theme of limiting increases in government spending.

"It's risky because the president is popular and because of his charisma," said Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). "And when you don't have a single spokesman, it's hard to communicate. But there is a sharp philosophical divide."

GOP officials said they would avoid personal attacks against Obama. "It has to be about the policies," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.).


That already sounds shaky. Even more as the WaPo article continues:

Republicans have already lined up to oppose Obama's budget, but they acknowledge it will be hard to make it clear to the public that they have a vision beyond opposing the president.

"One of the challenges that is presented to the minority party is to get heard," Steele said last week on NBC's "Today" show. "We're going to keep pushing it and trying to make as much noise as we can in a positive direction."

And on some issues, Republicans might have trouble presenting a unified strategy because they do not agree internally. Although House Republicans have organized a group to produce an alternative to the health-care proposal Obama and congressional Democrats are working on, there are strong differences among Republicans on how to approach the issue.


It seems that Obama is reading to the Republicans straight out of Sun Tzu's classic, The Art of War:
30. Disciplined and calm, to await the appearance
of disorder and hubbub amongst the enemy:--this is the art
of retaining self-possession.
Whether or not the Democrats themselves remain united is an interesting question, as the party is brilliant at slitting its own throat.

But let no one forget which party spent the last eight years either getting us into this mess or failing to prevent or even temper it, for their own ideological and corruption-based reasons.

And don't forget that in the only national plebiscite this country holds, once every four years, we voted resoundingly for "change" last November.

1 comment:

Master Fu said...

Wow, if I hear 8 years of a party getting us into this mess I'm going to punch a hole through the wall.

Things didn't get really bad until the Democrats took over Congress. It's amazing that under a Bush Presidency the DOW reached 14,000 and change. Once the Democrats took a majority that started to slip and once they took complete control we're half that. We were told that things were going bad, and guess what some people believed. Without belief in the dollar, stocks drop, currency drops, and bam half the worlds economy is down the gutter.

But guess what, you can only blame the previous administration for so long. Eventually things are going to have to be fixed. Obama, seems to be working hard with this roll up your sleeves attitude. He may have the answers, but like most problems in life there isn't just one solution, and I guarantee not everyone is going to like his.

Corporations are not immune to moving, looking for their personal Shangri-la's to maximise profits.
Looking at it now, there is probably going to have to be a massive infrastructure / reorganization that is going to have to occur post bailout. Unless bailouts are just the norm now. (ask AIG)