OBAMA’S REPORT CARD IV
OBAMA’S REPORT CARD IV
By
Ken Eliasberg
Previous “report card” columns on Obama serve mainly as background, e.g., his style, his approach to governing, and his endless talkathon. In short, the “form” of Obama, and form is everything to and for Obama. Why? Because, as oft noted, that’s all he’s ever been — lots of talk — smooth talk, to be sure — and nothing but talk. Before getting into the substance of Obama — i.e. his governance - I’d like to continue to deal with matters of form. Why? Because how you do something — or try to do something — may be as important as what you do. It may also be quite revealing, for the manner in which one pursues a task may speak volumes as to who the pursuer is and even as to the worthiness of the task pursued. So bear with me while I address certain preliminary matters which I believe bare fatal witness to the worthiness of both the task undertaken and the person or persons undertaking the task in question. Look at it if you will as some important housekeeping functions which, in my opinion, are essential in understanding who Obama is and what he is all about. Here I’m dealing with “process” (procedural matters, if you will) and trustworthiness, matters that tell us a great deal about the integrity of our leader. As noted, this goes to the manner in which one goes about pursing his goals, no matter how laudable those goals may or may not be.
Obama’s Broken Promises.- In seeking office, Obama promised change — specifically, this was to be a new Washington; things would not be done as they have always appeared to have been done. He promised to effect this change by doing several things that seemed conspicuous in their absence, to wit:
transparency — he would proceed in a completely transparent manner so that everything would be done out in the open for all to observe — he wouldpost everything on the net before it was acted upon (3 or 4 days before I believe was what he advised);uniter.- He would act in a bi-partisan manner, thereby diminishing, if noteliminating, the polarizing manner in which his predecessors had operated, particularly, in his view, his immediate predecessor; andethics.- he would operate in the most ethical manner ever — no more earmarks, corruption, or any of the other underhanded mechanisms through which political business had heretofore been done.
How has he fared in keeping these promises? Not well I’m afraid. Indeed, it has been business as usual (on steroids). Actually, it has been worse than that. Nothing has been transparent at all; almost everything has been done behind closed doors, with the Republicans being almost completely shut out of the process (with him and his cohorts falsely asserting that they had given the Republicans every opportunity to climb on board, but that they had nothing to offer). It was clearly a matter of my way or the highway. He has united nothing; he has made no effort to unite anything. Indeed, it was almost as if the Republicans didn’t exist. I’ve got a filibuster proof Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House, and you’ll do what I want or nothing at all. The Republicans, to their credit, chose not to capitulate. As far as ethics are concerned, this is the most corruption I have seen in over 50 years of being either a political observer and/or a political activist. In short, Obama talks the ethical talk but does not walk the ethical walk; he is little more than a Chicago thug — an eloquent thug to be sure, but a thug nonetheless.
Obama’s Cohorts Lack of Experience in the Private Sector.- His choice of appointees has also been disappointing in that almost none of them have any experience in the private sector — you know, the sector over which they are to preside and which, if we are to experience an economic recovery, the sector that must be resuscitated. The following list indicates the percentages of private business sector experience of cabinet appointees of Obama’s predecessors (going back a century):
T. Roosevelt — 38%Kennedy — 30%Obama — 8%
Taft — 40%Johnson — 47%
Wilson — 52%Nixon — 53%
Harding — 49%Ford — 42%
Coolidge — 48%Carter — 32%
Hoover — 42%Reagan — 56%
F. Roosevelt — 50%GH Bush — 51%
Eisenhower — 57%Clinton — 39%
GW Bush — 55%
This means that he has drawn on career politicians and academics for most of his advisors, a group that has never had to meet a payroll in their respective lives. Indeed, a group that one might say that has never really lived life in our capitalistic society but is quite comfortable telling the rest of us how we should live our lives.
In short, a group that reflects Obama’s own experience in the private sector. On the other hand, if your only goal is to move us in the direction of socialism, what better group can you put together to attain that goal?
Some Ethical Lapses.- I don’t want to get into all of the many shady things that have transpired in Obama’s first year, but let mejust cherry pick a few that I found a bit disconcerting. First there was the firing of an Inspector General, Gerald Walpin, who reported on certain financial improprieties, refusing to reimburse the organization involved in such improprieties. Then there was the refusal to take any action with the Black Panthers who had behaved somewhat menacingly at a polling place. And finally, at least for purposes of this column, there was his refusal to take any serious action against ACORN, a former client of his, and an organization that seems unable to avoid staying out of trouble (there are separate lawsuits being pursued against ACORN in some dozen or so States, all alleging some form or another of fraud — and I’m sure that you will recall the much ballyhooed case of the organization’s providing advice on how to properly rearrange the business plan of a prospective brothel to qualify it for a small business loan; I suppose Obama can explain this in terms of just trying to give some would-be capitalists a helping hand). This column barely scratches the surface in enumerating the many situations in which Obama’s actions radically part company with Obama’s promises. (to be continued)