By the time you read this, Barack Hussein Obama should be sworn in as our nation’s 44th President.
It’s interesting to think back eight years about the last time we made a transition such as this one and recall some of the differences.
The last time we did this, I don’t recall the fawning coverage of every move George W. Bush made. Perhaps I look at this through the lens of partisanship, but there were a lot of people in the “selected not elected” crowd who got the headlines.
Because of the Florida vote controversy, President Bush had a much shorter transition period. But I don’t believe any of his Cabinet picks had the baggage associated with three of Obama’s: Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, and Hillary Clinton. Nor does this account for the shenanigans associated with filling Obama’s vacated Senate seat. President Bush had the natural advantage of already having a successor in place when he left the Governorship of Texas to assume the Presidency.
Much was made in the early weeks of George W. Bush’s term about the “new tone” of non-partisanship, and the truce of sorts even held through the tragedy of 9/11 – who could forget the assembled Congress singing “God Bless America”?
While it’s the hope of all of us that President Obama doesn’t have to face such an attack on any day during his term, the question remains about how much he’ll work with the Republicans – unlike Bush, Obama has more of a solid majority of his party in both houses of Congress.
The way I look at it, those inside the Beltway and who cover that beat in the media are quickly abandoning the “new tone” for that same old song. Generally over the last several decades Democrats have thoroughly been in power and for them it’s back to the normalcy they’ve craved over the last 14 years.
I find it very interesting that even before the man has taken the Oath of Office, we already have a proposal to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This didn’t come up in the 110th Congress, but had in the previous three.
Our nation went through a lot over the last eight years, most pointedly a Long War against Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. While President Clinton touted the “peace dividend” that he inherited from his two Republican predecessors (who subdued the Soviet Union and helped to free several Eastern European nations from its orbit), President Obama (and likely his successors) will still be faced with this threat from the forces of radical Islam.
That’s not to say that President Bush stood idly by and did nothing; he instead chose to take the fight to them. Initially he had the support of our nation, but much like Vietnam the Fourth Estate led the effort to siphon off public support and eventually whittled it away enough to make even successes look like failures.
So now we have President Obama. I didn’t vote for the guy, but then again I’ve never voted for a Democrat for President and he certainly gave me no reason to switch over. (On the other hand, the Republican gave me plenty of reasons to stay home, but I held my nose and voted for him anyway.)
For the sake of our national security, I wish him the best of luck.
But for the sake of our Republic, my fervent hope is that he gets little of his agenda accomplished and that America wises up and returns to its onetime distrust of an ever-expanding, more intrusive government.
In short, let’s hope Barack Obama is a flash in the pan, one-term President, remembered only for trying but failing to make America into a socialist paradise. May the history books someday peg the beginning of his term as another Great Awakening, one that restores the vision Ronald Reagan had of America as a shining city on a hill and beacon of freedom.
What a negative post. How about let’s hope that Obama can fix some of the disastrous policies of the last 8 years. That he can get the US respected in the world once again. That he can get the economy back on its feet. That he can end the use of torture. That he can restore faith in our fellow human beings. That he can demonstrate that hope and optimism are more powerful than fear and cynicism. That he can restore personal repsonsibility. That he can stop the endless march of the national debt that began under Reagan and has ballooned under Bush. That deeds match words, and we don’t let a president slide by on rhetoric alone as we did with Reagan. Bush and his pals have driven this country into the ground. It is my fervent wish that Obama succeed, that he isn’t a flash in the pan one-term president, and that he makes the city on the hill inclusive for the first time in American history.
I don’t think Obama will fix the disastrous policies of the last eight years; if anything his “solutions” will make things worse. As one example, personally I didn’t think there was anything wrong with privatizing Social Security to the extent Bush proposed, but it was those on your side who wanted to maintain the status quo – that’s going to make Bernie Madoff look like child’s play in the next couple decades.
The question of respect seems to me misplaced. Perhaps the governments of the world do not like America, but by and large the people do. Why else do they like all things American?
I don’t think the huge infusion of government capital has gotten the economy back on its feet yet, so what makes you think throwing more money at the problem will solve anything? That’s what I get out of the liberal “solution” to the problem.
I’m all for stopping the use of torture, when our foes stop theirs.
I have plenty of faith in my fellow human beings. Liberals place their faith in government solutions that humans could solve if they had the opportunity.
Hope and optimism are more powerful than fear and cynicism. Reagan did a great job of showing that, yet it was the left who feared and were cynical about what he would do.
I would love to see a restoration of personal responsibility, but apparently that only applies to those who played by the rules. If you cheat on your taxes, you too can be Treasury Secretary.
If you thought the debt under Reagan and Bush was bad, what about the trillion-dollar deficit Obama’s plans have in store for us? At least with Reagan’s debt we subdued the Soviet Union and Bush’s helped get rid of two dictatorial regimes. Besides, you quickly forget that Congress makes the budget. I will grant that the Republicans could have held the line better (as they did under Clinton) but it is politically difficult to go against a President in your own party (although some braves Republicans did speak out against some of Bush’s domestic spending.)
Reagan “slide by on rhetoric”? We had a decade-plus of prosperity and several Eastern European allies thanks to Ronald Reagan. Obama could only hope to match those achievements.
If Bush and his pals have driven the country into the ground, Obama must be standing there with the shovel rapidly filling in the hole.
I’m sorry that you believe the soaring rhetoric you’ve been given by the left, but I won’t apologize for standing up for freedom and limited government for everyone, regardless of their amount of pigmentation, whether they posess the Y chromosone or not, to whom they pray (or even if they do), and the person they decide to sleep with.
I don’t see Barack Obama as one who will enhance either freedom or limited government, and his party has practiced the politics of division for generations.
Where to begin? Let’s start with this: “personally I didn’t think there was anything wrong with privatizing Social Security to the extent Bush proposed.”
Great idea. It’s not like the stock market would lose 30% of its value or anything. That could never happen! Second, “but I won’t apologize for standing up for freedom and limited government for everyone, regardless of their amount of pigmentation, whether they posess the Y chromosone or not, to whom they pray (or even if they do), and the person they decide to sleep with.” If you truly believe this, and I believe you do, you should not be a Republican, you should be a Libertarian. The “family values” Republicans, when they aren’t busy hiring prostitutes or waving their hands under bathroom stalls, DO care who you sleep with and who you pray to. Third, “I’m all for stopping the use of torture, when our foes stop theirs.” Great argument. We’ll only do the right thing if others do the right thing, there is no place for holding ourselves to the highest standards. Gee, what happened to America being a “city upon a hill?” You cannot hold the moral high ground while torturing people, period. And, finally, I must challenge your false dichotomy of believing in government or believing in people. Here’s what we liberals believe: that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Sounds sort of familiar.
Seeing that I’m watching my 401.k tank, I can understand your argument. However, there’s risk in everything and the risk in the Social Security status quo is that our nation will bankrupt itself or tax future generations into their own bankruptcy.
I have a lot of Libertarian tendencies, but I’d rather work from within a party which has tasted electoral success than try to build from without.
Regarding torture, you make it sound like we’re bloodhirsty. I suspect that those who claim we’re torturing them have suckered the media into believing their story. Consider Guantanamo: we’re holding prisoners who are living well enough to gain weight, as opposed to al-Qaeda freemen who are dying from bubonic plague.
Perhaps you believe in government for the people, etc. as I do – unfortunately our system of government seems to lend itself to government of the special interests, by the elites, and for those who can enrich themselves at the public trough. The reason is because government has gotten too large and all-powerful, outstripping the Constitutional bounds envisioned by those who wrote it.
“we’re holding prisoners who are living well enough to gain weight”
Really? You seriously believe this? Ok, I am going to be a hypocrite and use Wikipedia because I don’t have time today to do the real research, but here you go: “On June 10, 2006 three prisoners held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps committed suicide. The United States Department of Defense (DoD) stopped reporting Guantanamo suicide attempts in 2002. The Bush administration announced a policy where captives taken during the invasion of Afghanistan could be detained indefinitely, without benefit of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The DoD set up detainment camps at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
Some prisoners started attempting to commit suicide almost immediately.[citation needed] In mid-2002 the DoD changed the way they classified suicide attempts, calling them “self-injurious behavior”. The DoD acknowledges 41 suicide attempts among 29 detainees.[1] The June 10 2006 suicides were the first inmate deaths at the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.
On January 24, 2005 the U.S. military revealed that there were 350 incidents of self-harm in 2003.[2] 120 of those incidents of self-harm were attempts by detainees to hang themselves. 23 detainees participated in a simultaneous mass-suicide attempt.”
Seriously, you think Gitmo is some sort of Club Med? It is an awful place to be. Some of the guys there undoubtedly deserve it, some do not. We’ll never know who deserves it and who doesn’t because the Bush administration refused to put anyone on trial. And now we are stuck with guys who, if they weren’t predisposed to hate the US, now have an incentive to do us harm. If the US cannot hold itself to a higher standard,then who can?