Is The Left Worrying Over Obama Now, Too?
By Anita Finlay ("Ani") on April 14, 2009 at 6:05 PM in Backtrack Obama, Bailouts, Bank Failure, Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner
Please adjust my goggles if I am incorrect, but isn’t Truthout.org that progressive publication that was forever calling President Bush and his administration out on the carpet for their many ills? Now Marc Ash of Truthout writes a powerful rant targeting the new administration called This Isn’t Working. I know there have been rumblings of disappointment from the left with President Obama’s policies. When even the odious Keith Olbermann rails about “change we cannot believe in” well, something interesting is afoot. Ash writes:
…The raging inferno of corruption that began in the Bush years burns out of control now, and time is of the essence…the fire is now raging and threatens to consume everything.
While the new, and very popular, President Barack Obama appears to mean well, Hillary Clinton’s admonishment that he was unprepared for what lays ahead now seems more real than at first imagined.
Um, yeah. She tried to tell you, and we tried to tell you.
More from Mr. Ash:
Economics were central to the outcome of the November elections. More to the point, economic reform. Obama, a noteworthy beneficiary of that voter outrage, appears however to be deferring to the best judgment of his economic advisers. Foremost among them, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Chairman of the National Economic Council Lawrence H. Summers. It’s not clear exactly what Obama wants, but Geithner and Summers want to repair Wall Street, to resurrect the system that now cannibalizes the nation’s economy, not reform it. Geithner and Summers like the Wall Street system, and they want you to like it, too. But even if you don’t like it, they definitely want you pay for it. You are, and how.
What we’re seeing here is a reinvestment in, not a divestment from, Reaganomics. The cost is staggering and the ramifications are long-term.
But didn’t President Obama tout Reaganomics out on the campaign trail last year? I seem to remember that. Did his supporters think he was just “spitballing?” I think it is very clear what Obama wants, otherwise he would not have put Geithner in charge. Obama is supposed to be possessed of such fine judgment, after all.
Geithner and Summers appear to be determined to restore Wall Street, no matter what the cost. But what if restoring Wall Street doesn’t fix the problem? What if Wall Street is the problem? Geithner and Summers have missed the most fundamental component in this equation; the American Worker does not depend on Wall Street; Wall Street depends on the American worker. Destroying the American worker to save the investment banker truly defeats the system.
Regulation is a critical missing element in any meaningful attempt to an economic reform. But regulation means nothing without law enforcement. Unless ultimately there is a jail cell waiting for those who break the law, then regulation is theater and nothing more. … For the better part of a decade, the message has been clear: “if you are powerful and connected you will never face meaningful prosecution”. You are above the law.
The nation’s top cop is Attorney General Eric Holder. While Holder is certainly qualified for the post, there is no indication at this admittedly early stage that he has any plans to bring criminal actions against the nation’s rich and powerful, regardless of the evidence. And there is evidence aplenty. The silence from the Department of Justice is deafening, and the clock is ticking.
Mr. Ash rightly points out that we continue to have no accountability. But there is more to it than that. I understand at least half the banks want to return their bailout money and Obama and Geithner don’t want to take it. They would rather have a reason to impose their own controls instead – but to what end? Is this to further manipulate our current situation so they can use it to their advantage in pushing a political agenda? As White House Chief of Staff Emanuel pointed out, “never waste a good crisis.”
Fascinating in all of this is that Mr. Ash, by inference, sort of paints President Obama as a hapless neophyte overly reliant on the “experts” to tell him what to do. Well. How do I respond here?
The fact is our president must take responsibility not only for his appointments but for the direction they take, or for their inaction. He is their Chief Executive. They serve at his pleasure.
So either this ‘Wall Street first’ attitude at the expense of Main Street is his plan all along, or he is not capable and is being led around by the nose. Which is it? He is either “the most brilliant leader since Gandhi,” as one pundit just called him, or he is the Emperor with no clothes. There is no way around this.
Mr. Ash further complains about President Obama’s adding more troops in Afghanistan, more money to the war effort and does not see an end in sight in Iraq. He concludes:
Both of Mr. Bush’s wars continue and President Obama will awake one day soon to find that they are his. Again, the president defers to the experts; in this case, the generals; again, the experts lead in a direction of their choosing, not in the direction mandated by the voters.
If the administration doesn’t have the players in place to confront the problem, they need to go out and get better players.
The hour is late, and this isn’t working.
But President Obama is the “Player in Chief.” If he is the insightful leader his supporters touted, then the mess Geithner and Summers are creating, Obama’s power grab re warrantless wiretapping, expanding Bush’s faith based initiatives, going the way of Reaganomics and expanding and continuing the war effort are deliberate acts on his part and are also part of the “good judgment” they trumpeted. Otherwise Mr. Ash and his colleagues believe he is only reading from the TelePrompTer, taking advice whispered in his ear, and has no business in the job. How can it be both?
It seems to me members of the left who are criticizing him now must cease their cognitive dissonance. If they truly think he is brilliant, they cannot outsource the blame for his policies, as though he is not really in charge here. Last year they spit on Hillary Clinton’s “experience” as being irrelevant and wished for Mr. Obama’s “judgment” instead. They wanted him. They got him. And all that goes with him.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman’s NYT column “Tea Parties Forever” stated that “the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now” – probably to alleviate the pressure he is feeling from Rahm Emanuel et al for being so critical of the President’s economic policies. I guess Paul felt he’d better give equal time and kick some Republicans in the butt, too, while he was at it. And I don’t disagree with some of his points on past GOP behavior. However, to characterize tea party protests as “astroturfing” is dishonest. While there will always be those who seek to capitalize on the actions of sincere people for political gain, the truth is, people of all backgrounds and parties are protesting out of control spending and expressing a deep frustration at feeling they have no say in the fiscal path this administration has chosen.
We are beyond blaming one side or the other. This is no longer about Party. This is about a power structure which rewards those who shout the loudest and that usually winds up being the most influential, wealthy or connected. While we are given bread and circuses.
We are in need of massive reform for both parties, but the current power structure is not about to give that to us. Certainly President Obama got behind the desk in the Oval Office, saw the power grab performed by the Bush Administration and decided he liked what he saw – far from ceasing signing statements, he is using them. Even folks like Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley have admitted he is going further than President Bush did.
Furthermore, every time I call my Congressman and Senators to complain about the bailouts or to enquire as to oversight for these funds or any other programs being enacted without the transparency we were promised, the response on the other end of the line is both defensive and incredulous; followed by a pat on the head and a “that’s nice, now run along and play, little girl.”
I don’t care where the solutions come from. I have long ceased drinking any Party’s Kool-Aid. I just don’t want to be living in an oligarchy or under the rule of “a Unitary Executive,” as a recent critic of Mr. Obama labeled him. Even some blog responders over at DailyKos were referring to the President by this moniker. Surprising.
Perhaps I might close with the first commenter to Mr. Ash’s article. Someone named “mysterioso” said, in part:
After voting for Obama, I can now see he lied over and over again during the campaign. There will be no “change”. He never intended for there to be “change”. Only business as usual.
I truly hope this is not the case. I don’t expect any President to perform perfectly. But certainly President Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what he promised. Mr. Obama’s most virulent supporters, who trashed us mercilessly while singing his praises, must be wondering how he can get away with this. The answer of course is they knowingly granted him this power when they decided to overlook his many contradictions on the campaign trail. When Hillary’s supporters shouted loud and long about these inconsistencies, they instead chose to shoot the messenger.
No one should be scratching their heads now.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
