What rubbish! Pure political BS.
The title describes the article: No substance.

Reversing the disaster of the last administration is taking up all his time.
Name another president that has had to handle the immanent destruction of it's monetary system and the loss of all allies trust!
Where were you when Bush was lying, torturing, stealing and murdering his way around the world? (this makes you an accomplice, one of many political "institutes")
I'd say he is dong better than Rudd, who has stuffed up on Afghanistan, ETS, cash bonuses and an endless banking profit guarantee. Kevin, we'll forgive cuts if needed, but we will *not* forgive wasteful handouts to the wealthy which the poor (ex-middle class) will pay for.

And this is what passes for "informed" opinion by those on the right side of the USA culture wars!

Ted Bromund,
It's reassuring to hear the voice of reason in contrast to the usual media fawning.
How the American people could have allowed themselves to be duped by this dangerous demagogue defies determination.
Hugo Chavez got it right the first time when he described Obama as a "poor ignoramus" but I hear they've made up since.

President Obama was described in an Australian Editorial (27/4) as being "more willing to compromise" on foreign affairs. That's not necessarily a good thing - cf Neville Chamberlain. Recalcitrant regimes in Russia, Iran, North Korea et al will seek to exploit this for their own ends, and the test will be whether offering compromise to unreasonable despots will in fact achieve better outcomes than a harder-line stance. It's never worked before.

The scope for foreign policy might be constrained by economic problems at home - cf General Motors, which is proposing that in return for $US27 billion funding being considered by Obama, the government gets 50% of the shares in a worthless company facing increasing competition. The massive government injections will be paid for through higher tax and interest rates and slower growth in incomes and employment (the same fate that awaits Australians from Rudd's splash-the-cash approach).

A photo of Obama that tells it all about the latter’s ‘substance.’ Has anyone seen Obama’s photo in The Australian, April 29, 2009, when he was given the cap of the FBI at his visit in its headquarters? His expression is that of a toddler who has been given an ugly toy for a present. This photo will haunt Obama for the rest of his term.

The legendary stork has brought an unloved child in a basket to the American people. Abandoned as a toddler by his father, dumped as a child by his mother on his grandparents, he has been searching for love ever since. And finally he has founded it in the initially warm embrace of the foster parenthood of the prattling classes, the politically disgruntled from the previous administration, and all the poor. And being laid in this ‘public’ bed of love and indulging its pleasures to the full Obama will eventually have to pay its high price. As to continue to be the recipient of this love, so existentially necessary for him, his agenda perforce has to be focused in satisfying these three groups simultaneously. That is why his grand social policies of universal health care, education, foreign policy, and climate change, are so important to him. But this is a task for one endowed with superior qualities and Obama has the ordinary qualities of a ‘community organiser’ dressed in ‘ivy clothes leaves.’ And in this inability to accomplish the great change that he promised to the American people the presently smitten with love public for Obama will turn against him and the latter will find himself bitten by the adder on his path to failure.

http://kotzabasis.createblog.co

Themistocles,
I wish I could write like you!

I'm sorry the link of my previous post is wrong.The correct one is:
http://kotzabasis4.wordpress.com

Faustino

"the test will be whether offering compromise to unreasonable despots will in fact achieve better outcomes than a harder-line stance. It's never worked before."

Really? How about the following examples?

1) Compromising with Stalin for the purposes of defeating Hitler.
2) Negotiating with Stalin to agree nuclear non-proliferation treaty (plus many other international treaties).
3) Dealing with a large variety of despots in the Middle East, thus getting access to oil and, remarkably, getting a degree of peace for Israel.
4) During the Cuban missile crisis compromising with the Soviets regarding US missiles in Turkey, thus avoiding nuclear war.
5) Holding serious and friendly talks with Gorbachev, thus ending the Cold War. (Check out the interview with Reagan where he admits that the USSR is not the 'Evil Empire')

And that's without even thinking too hard.

Even George W Bush gave up the hardline stance with North Korea in favour of compromise and got much better results.

Contrast this with the hardline examples:

1) Invading Iraq
2) Invading Afghanistan
3) Using torture
4) Refusing to talk to North Korea
5) 50 years of sanctions against Cuba (where's that got us?)
6) Vietnam
7) Driving up the arms race in the early 80s nearly causing nuclear catastrophe in 1984
etc. etc.

And that's just considering the US's actions. A few failed hardline examples from other countries:
1) Arabs attacking Israel.
2) Al Qaeda attacking the US
3) Palestinians attacking Israel
4) Israel attacking Palestine
5) USSR invading Afghanistan
6) Iraq invading Kuwait
7) Hitler invading everywhere

And I forgot - perhaps the best example of each - Allies hardline treatment of Germany after WW1 versus Allies friendly and generous treatment of Germany after WWII.

Cazza,
You're very knowledgeable!

I enjoy these articles. The Right is so desperate to land a blow on Obama that it’s reduced to churning out pages of sputtering, insubstantial rage, which some kind editor has organised into paragraphs.

The “freedom” argument is particularly hearty. The Bush administration talked a lot about freedom, but proving that it created any is a bleak prospect indeed. Rather, “freedom” became a magic word for capturing the moral high ground and dodging reasonable criticism.

“Why did you punch me in the face?”
“For freedom. Do you hate freedom?”
“That’s not relevant! You punched me in the face!”
“If you like freedom why are you complaining?”
“Hang on! You just…”
“Freedom-hating socialist.”
“No, you…”
“Freedom.”
“But,”
“FREEDOM, FREEDOM, FREEDOM!”

Themistocles, I’m going to assume you were angry and perhaps a bit drunk when you wrote your 7:43 post. The only other explanation is that you previewed it and thought, “Yes. This is convincing, substantive, and not at all childish”. And I just can’t believe that happened.

But just for fun, let’s run with your theory. Let’s say the Democrats’ policies and election strategy were irrelevant, that the Bush administration didn’t run the global economy into the ground or destroy what remained of sensible conservatism, and that millions of starry-eyed Americans simply fell deeply in love with one Barack Hussein Obama.

And who were the suitors? On one hand, a driven, articulate black man who speaks with clarity, logic, and the adaptability of youth. Who has authored two books, survived the vicious world of Chicago politics, campaigned on the message of hope after a decade of fear-politics, and has overcome the inertia of racial prejudice to become nominee for the most powerful post in the world.

On the other hand, an undistinguished but thoroughly decent old man limping toward retirement.

Hard choice for the voters, eh?

Themistocles, if we accept your...quaint theory of political science, then the Left is a gorgeous super-stud who pulls the girls for obvious reasons, while the Right is pimply, overweight, and shut in its bedroom, weeping and masturbating in a bog of self-pity.

The yanks have a long history of being taken in by B grade evangelists, with a good line of bull.

Fortunately, none of them ever got this far before.

Unfortunately, this one is going to cost them , & probably us, dearly.

Yes all you Obama rubbishes just think how wonderful it will be to have Limbaugh leading the Republican party.
You people have got to be kidding Bush,Thatcher and co where a disaster as PM and President.
But you silly right wingers are still pining for the most incompetent person ever to be in power in the US and the bunch of crooks thieves and war criminals he had with him.
Still you always have Faux News and the OZ to sustain your delusions

Mr Bromund, maybe a certain amount of admittance from even just us Anglophiles, would do modern society the world of good.

Mostly what Obama is trying to do is treat the whole world as good parents try to understand their children.

Something my now dead wife even when young would remind me that while ready to punish our kids too quickly for disobedience, better to have a get together over it, letting the angry parental frown show a little kindly despair.

That is why so many so-called devout Christians avoid discussing the Sermon on the Mount because in a historical sense it certainly forbids the rampant colonialism that made us white Westerners what we are.

Would reckon that what Obama would really like to do is simplly have a go at the old Religio-Historio lesson of Sharing the Blame.

Wow, USA is taking out its Public Army ending the U.S. occupation means ending all U.S. funding for the giant contractors — Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater.

But what of the Private Owned Oil Coops.. They can still hire the very Private Contractors the USA government has hired.! This is all out of the hands of any President as it will be in Iraq, as was the Americans taking Oil Via Great Britain’s Oil Companies
When they had a falling out with Libya. The United States lifted this embargo in 2004, the official version was the Oil Drilling Ceased . Libya has the eight largest oil fields in the world, this embargo had been in place since 1986.

The Oil Companies have taken public moneys to guarantee their own Wealth for far too long adding to the Bankrupts for other needy causes, and these are still feeling the pinch because Obama sees to it that Wall Street is propped up.

The Motor Industry is not what it used to be as no jobs means no money means you cannot pay the re payments for house and car. Tent Cities popping up all over America & Obama like his predecessor won’t or cannot do anything about it whilst he lives in the Ivory White Tower. He cares more about feed a pet dog for his spoilt children than seeing that other children are fed and housed

Iraq was under embargo when Bush Senior was in power, and I saw on television how the Iraq motorists improvised with their older cars, if they could not acquire a part for the vehicle they would improvise & make it themselves, eg adjust a ford part to fit a commodore. Australians are even now seeking out vehicles they can work on themselves in preference to struggling to meet payments they can ill afford & have their families go Hungary, or scrounge food from over Taxed Charities. Cont.

Cont:
Our Government along with USA are increasing Troops and Money into Afghanistan, not to help the Afgan but to add security to the Pipe Lines to transport the Oil and Gas out of the Surrounding Land Locked Countries. Obama is no Angel of Mercy, he is a Tool in the hands of the Huge Cooperations who are behind the building of these Pipelines

http://www.viewzone.com/pipeline.html

The real danger of Obama is that he is so popular.In the eyes of most ,he can do no wrong,thus people will be willing to give up more of their personal freedoms in trust of this new messiah.The Merrycans tend to be a Nation of Hollywood hero worshippers and often substitute faith,for knowledge and cold hard analysis.

Obama is not the well intended person he portrays.There are powers behind the scenes pulling the strings of both houses that are far more powerful than any of us can imagine.

I don't think that Obama has the courage of JFK to take them on.Time will tell.

Can you still judge a man by the company he keeps or is that conservative wisdom?

Some of Obama’s gallery of rogues, radicals, terrorists and tax cheats:

Bill Ayers – unrepentant terrorist and former Weatherman

Louis Farrakhan – Nation of Islam leader who calls Obama the Messiah

Rev Jeremiah White – “God damn America” etc, etc, (Obama never heard this in 19 years!)

Tony Rezko – Convicted criminal. Mrs Rezko helped Obama buy, and then subsidised, his mansion.

Failed appointees:

Bill Richardson: facing corruption charges.

Tom Daschle: Failed to pay $100,000 taxes.

Nancy Killefer: Failed to pay employment taxes on house servant.

Sundry others who didn’t want to be tainted.

Appointees:

Hilda Solis: Husband paid 16 year old outstanding tax one day before her confirmation.

Ron Kirk: Failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes

Timothy Geithner: Failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes dating from 2001.
Only Obama could get away with appointing a tax cheat to oversee the Tax Department!

Has taken legal action to block attempts to get him to release his full birth certificate to prove his eligibility for president.

One could go on but it's too depressing.

And of course little Georgie was shiny clean.

One could elaborate, but it's too depressing.

Ginx ,you miss the point.This is not an argument of right v's left.Bush was a facist ars!hole and Obama will just be a more sophistocated one.

It is the corporate elite behind the scenes who hold the real reigns of power.That increasingly is becoming more evident as Obama's impotence is revealed.

First of all RJ, I haven't missed the point; YOU have.

The point was that this IS a Left/Right thing. If you see Bush in the manner you state-AND your point is about control/influence, then go into the same detail re Bush that you did with Obama. THEN I will see political balance.

Btw, I disagree with you. Bush was an incredibly weak man in a powerful position. Obama is a much stronger character, I doubt that this guy is anyone's puppet; particularly if it cuts across his image in any way.

Do I see Obama as shiny clean? Hell no! He's a politician for crying out loud! None of these people here/there, are of any substance in my view.

BUT: I would settle for anyone; ANYONE other than Bush. Same for Howard. Because they were ultra-conservative? yes! But specifically because they did not govern; they dictated. They collected those around them like a damn gang, and dominated their countries, whilst protecting the wealthy and adroit. THAT is why I despise both men so intensely;-and why I loathed Thatcher. And for the record: the biggest hypocrite of them all; Tony Blair.

What irritates me is the type of detailed criticism that you have put up, suggesting you're not biased..? When America has just gone through one of the most corruptED (that does not make it libel!!), regimes in American political history.

Obama Kills babies and drinks puppies blood. Also he is guy, has aids and he started the global warming myth. oh and he hates jesus.

Bush left to Obama the bigest economic crisis after 1933, a broken healthcare system, two wars with trillions of dollars costs, poverty, inequality and Americans to lose their hope for a better future, ONLY 11% of Americans then believed they was going to the right direction.

Mr Obama is honouring his promise to change America
two thirds of Americans believe that Mr Obama is doing a good job – far higher than for either of his two predecessors at a similar stage – the approval rating is not as positive as for either Kennedy or Eisenhower.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-mr-obama-is-honouring-his-promise-to-change-america-1675701.html

An Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction — compared with 44 percent who disagree.
The "right direction" number is up 8 points since February and a remarkable 31 points since October, the month before Obama's election
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama100_days_ap_poll

Several national polls taken in advance of Wednesday's 100-day mark suggest is widespread. Obama's approval rating stands at 62 percent — the highest of any president at this point in his first term since Ronald Reagan. And for the first time in years, the same AP poll found, more Americans think the country is going the right way than the wrong way.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article995485.ece

Americans know better what is good for them, than australian conservatives

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Sorry ASymeonakis,
"Americans" don't "know better what is good for them, than australian conservatives" because the news they receive is being severely distorted by the left-wing liberal media.
That's the same media that lynched Palin while fawning over their poster boy.

"The nonpartisan research group Center for Media and Public Affairs along with California's Chapman University released a study that found the nightly newscasts devoted 27 hours, 44 minutes to Pres. Obama's presidency in his first 50 days. That compares to 7 hours, 42 minutes for Pres. George W. Bush and 15 hours, 2 minutes for Pres. Bill Clinton during the first 50 days of their first terms.

Not only has Obama gotten more coverage, but that coverage has been more positive than his predecessors.

On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts, 58% of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, while 42% were unfavorable. That compares with 33% positive in the comparable period of Bush's tenure and 44% positive for Pres. Clinton."
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/network_newsing/evening_newscasts_have_covered_obama_more_than_bush_clinton_combined_115055.asp

That's 6.33 times as much positive prime time Obama coverage as Bush coverage.

It's called propaganda and it works.
After all, you're falling for it.

KMB how you can sit there and type such utter rubbish,with a straight face, are you sure your not Glen Beck or Hannity in disguise.
Do you pine for FAUX NEWs.the birth certificate is an out and out lie, only believed by those on the outer reaches of the lunar right.
Next thing you will be telling us Rush Limbaugh is sane,The KKK are just misunderstood and everyone should have access to a machine gun.

Come on - if you're going to hold right wing, militaristic free market fundamentalist opinions, you really need to support them with at least shards of intelligence, analysis or thought - this is simply ideological sand throwing...I don't like him, I don't like him, because, because I don't. Maybe even shards are more than we should expect from an ideology that is not only bankrupt but has tried to bankrupt us all - morally, environmentally, socially and financially.

I have arrived late to this article.

I gather that in the first 100 days of his administration Obama is to blame for everything from the GFC, AGW and probably Swine Flu.

However I am still in gobsmack mode from the thought that there is a:

Margaret Thatcher Center for FREEDOM?!

FREEDOM + Margaret Thatcher?!

Well hit me with the oxymoronic stick.

Here I was thinking that Obama had done more to mend broken bridges of communication in the past 100 days than any president since, dunno.

And maybe he's the first president to actually have some awareness that the USA is not the centre of the universe, has to get along with the rest of the world and has to clear up one of the biggest financial messes ever left by a previous administration.

But not according to "back to the 70's" Ted Bromund a clone from the Heritage Foundation started 36 years ago by Reagan. A think tank created by those who believe they are 'born to rule' and supporter of the M.T.C. for Freedom. Biased? Much.

What is needed is change to how we view the economy as being all there is, to realising that without a healthy population supported by a healthy sustainable environment, there will be no economy. This is a fact that the drones of Reaganomics have yet to grasp, if ever.

Thank you OLO, for alerting me to this out-of-touch, out-of-date, head-in-sand neo-lib.

Go for it, Fractelle, and though the old days are past, it is both political and philosophical commonsense to learn from the past, just as you have intimated.

However, we must also learn that wars to end wars is not the way to end all future wars, as proven by WW1 and WW2.

Certainly our human world now with its war against nature, needs not a Churchill nor the like, but one with not only political skill, but the compassion and commonsense that is so much needed in a world facing a far greater danger than from self-styled autocrats pushing personal power.

I do pray that Obama might have it, but not just for America, but to say again, compassion and understanding for all the world at large.

Fractelle, I was bemused by the Margaret Thatcher Freedom centre too. Fortunately, such an appropriate label explains why this piece is so dodgy.

Maybe they should call it the 'United-Margaret-Thatcher-Reagan-Republican-Freedom-Liberty-Tower-of-Morality-Democracy.'

They could probably add 'puppies' and 'America!' maybe 'Pioneer-apple-pie!' while they're at it.

It's not that these concepts ain't nice. It's that they're doublespeak that treat us like idiots, as Sancho pointed out. Simplistic terms like 'Axis of Evil' do nobody any favours and rule out compromise.

Sometimes compromise is unwise, but ruling it out as an option constrains your abilities diplomatically. Never rule anything out unless you get some kind of gain from doing so. Diplomacy 101.

All that being said, I'm having reservations about Obama. His insistence on suspending civil rights for prisoners from all over the world, held at Bagram, disturbs me. As does his moves to further expand sections of the patriot act relating to surveillance - moves that would make it impossible for people to 'EVER' sue the US government in the event that personal information, collected via wiretaps, harms them.

I'll admit, I'm very concerned at how many people are simply saying "Obama is a nice guy, he must know what he's doing" when they would never accept such a comment from the right side of the political spectrum.

This piece however, is utter tripe from the far right. I get so sick of all this one-eyed commentary. Why can't people honestly accept the failures on both sides of the political divide.

I'll have to keep an eye out from missives from this 'Thatcher' centre for Freedom. Nutbags. Utter nutbags.

i liked kenny's version much better than bromund's. it had the same veracity and intellectual content, and wasted much less of my time.

TRTL

I never expected to be 100% in agreement with all of Obama's decisions. And I take your point about Obama's current handling of prisoners from the M.E. conflict. Very concerning indeed.

Therefore, I am still waiting and seeing.

Meanwhile, rhetorical bilge such as that presented in this article should be a timely reminder that vigilance is required at all times. Sincere constructive criticism is always productive, however this article is not only an insult to our intelligence but lowers the standards of OLO as well. I would've expected such a poorly constructive argument, bereft of evidence as it is, to make an appearance on some far-right blog, not the supposedly balanced OLO forum.

Where do I start?
The US's uncompromising stance over the past 65 years has been the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
Who organised the coup which overthrew Mossadegh and led directly to the upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism which eventually led to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran?
Who funded the Taliban to fight the Russians which led directly to the founding of Al Quaeda?
Who supported Israel no matter what which has led to the quagmire which is the Palestinian question?
Who invaded Iraq thereby providing a rallying point and haven for Islamic extremists and detabilising the region?
Aren't we glad we took a hard line on things so that the worlds would be a safer place? NOT!
This is incoherent pap and ideological drivel masquerading as analysis

You are certainly right about vigilance, Fractelle, but vigilance can also be immoral - it all depends who is running the show.

Certainly Israel is vigilant, as she proves when she knocks out any new installation that could be nuclear while though small, she has one of the most deadly up to date nuclear set-ups herself.

Though I admit that OLO is needed in times such as these, but would prefer there to be something more scientific to work on.

Such as the scientific study of power balances, for example, now only carried out in universities because outside there are so many arguments that still appear to hold water, all too often more right wing than left wing.

There is little doubt that there will be more such problems coming up, as already is happening now with us attacking Obama?

I couldn't believe how blindly biased (not to mention - incorrect) this "opinion piece" was until I read that the author works at Heritage Foundation. Then it all made sense. Who next to grace these pages? Rush Limbaugh?

Mental Note: next time heck the author's affiliation first before wasting time with right-wing riff-raffs.

Windchimer,
"Who next to grace these pages?"
How many times must I tell you...
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind...

Bushbred

Yes, vigilance can only go so far.

Another way of perceiving the impact of this article is the swift response, by many here, to highlight its lack of objectivity, evidence and display its underlying agenda; to malign anything that even hints at moves towards an equitable egalitarian society.

I find the neo-lib response to a mere 100 days of Democrat leadership as over-reacting in the extreme.

For a final word check out Jon Stewart's take on "Baracknophobia".

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=Baracknophobia---Obey

shal; very nicely put!!

They once said that a black man would be president when pigs fly. His first 100 days and BAM!... swine flu

Yes, Fractelle, mate, as I said in my last thread, I'd certainly like to read a scientific opinion on the problem, and not just somebody's personal opinion, as most of the study lectures appear to be.

And all I can say about Obama, now he has gone this far, for Godsake give him a go, especially as it looks like if he is a failure, there is no one game enough to mention someone who could take his place?

Regards, Bushbred, WA.

Obama will do as he is told by the corporate elites,so don't expect too much.The last great president was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.It has all been a downhill run since then.

Obama should be supporting the auditing of the Federal Reserve and instigating enquiries into the Bush dynastasy for illegal war in Iraq.
It won't happen under Obamas' watch.

Thanks Ginx

Seeing the Federal Reserve is pretty well owned by the Rockefellers, and they seem to have gone into hiding, we could be in a real pretty pickle.

But of course, not the Rockefellers if it's all about the present Crash, for they'll probably soon be buying up as they and the Rothchilds did after the 1930's Depression.

It's so very interesting that such families can always disappear when the world's in trouble?

Cheers, BB.

bushbred
I thought you were in favour of the existence of the Federal Reserve?