Obama Shows Gambling Streak in Debt-Ceiling Deal

Obama Shows Gambling Streak in Debt-Ceiling Deal

By Ron Klain


Among the many misconceptions about Barack Obama is that he is cautious. In fact, it is hard to think of a modern president in recent times who has been more willing to take big risks, not because he is reckless, but because he is willing to suffer potential short-term setbacks to achieve a desired long-term result. It is in that context that the much-maligned debt-ceiling compromise must be understood.

This sort of risk-taking goes beyond making policy choices, whose success or failure will always be debated, and can’t be known for years. What I am talking about are presidential decisions that can be demonstrably shown to be right or wrong in a relatively short window, with serious repercussions. That sort of risk-taking by presidents is fairly rare, and yet Obama hasn’t hesitated to take such gambles.

One example early in his administration was his choice to “bail out” the automobile industry. There were many ways in which that could have gone wrong: Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co. (GM) could have failed; management changes and bankruptcy filings that the administration insisted upon could have exacerbated problems; good money could have been thrown after bad.

The safe course was the one that President George W. Bush followed: pumping in just enough money to be able to say he had made an effort, and letting the chips fall where they may. But Obama took action by investing substantial funds, demanding important management and strategic changes, requiring bankruptcy filings, and painfully shrinking auto-dealer networks. All were risky steps that could have quickly unraveled.

Two years later, that choice is paying off: Car sales have risen, auto-industry employment is up, taxpayers are getting their money back, and U.S. cars are getting higher consumer ratings than ever.

more...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2011/08/obama_shows_gambling_streak_in031412.php

:kick:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it was a risk for the SEALs, but if it had gone wrong it wouldn't be held against Obama. Just think of the helicopter crash that just happened. It would be just like that. We don't really know what that helicopter was doing and if the Pakistan raid went wrong we wouldn't know what that was about either. It would just be a tragedy and no one would ask any questions about it.

Yes, the Seals risked their lives, yes, Obama would not have paid a political price, but do you really think he doesn't feel something with every casualty? I suspect anyone without a personal connection goes hours and even days at a time without thinking about the war. I suspect Obama can't go an hour.

A president who agonizes over troop deaths wouldn't have sent those troops into harm's way in the first place for a cause he doesn't even believe in:

After the first year of his presidency, it was popular to call Obama the new Jimmy Carter. He appeared far too cautious, dithering, and contemplative. Why did he not speak out more boldly—and more quickly—when Iranians came out into the streets? Why did it take 94 days for him to discuss the proper strategy for Afghanistan, only to be savaged by the right and the left for increasing troop levels while announcing a deadline for withdrawal? Obama’s foreign policy decisions will still be critiqued, and rightly so. But, had Sunday’s mission gone horribly wrong, “Carter” would have tripped off the lips of every pundit. That would have been an obvious political risk to anyone in the room when the president scrapped the idea of a surgical missile strike in favor of an assault led by Navy SEALS. The mission could have gone wrong, but it didn’t. It was judiciously planned. Obama’s helicopters flew straight, and, when they encountered unexpected adversity—one of the helicopters engines stalled—they had a contingency plan to see the mission through successfully. The desire of a president to move decisively, combined with the patience to see to the details: Who is going to call Obama the aloof, contemplative professor now? The comparison to Carter died in Pakistan along with bin Laden.

This won’t seem entirely fair to some. Obama may have requested and approved the plan, but it was a military operation. It was a handful of elite U.S. soldiers who made the difference in the moments that mattered most. Why should the broad, general critiques of Obama’s foreign policy change from one day to the next, based on a single successful operation? Fair. But, then again, did President Carter himself fly two helicopters into a sand storm. The narrative that Republican presidents were somehow tough, serious men of the world, while Democratic do-gooders were generally inattentive and easily duped was always specious. The Bush administration’s rush to Iraq should have ended this storyline, but it was not enough. Stories need heroes, and Democratic presidents needed to add to their win column. Bin Laden’s death, and the circumstances that led to it, are just such a victory.

Sunday was an important day for the United States. It was the high point of President Obama’s presidency. But it was also something else: A vital win for Democratic foreign policymakers, and the future presidents they will serve.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/87789/osama-bin-laden-obama-jimmy-carter-foreign-policy

38 people just died in the helicopter crash, and no one is pinning it on Obama. Times have changed since Carter. We're taking risks all over the world and we're accidentally killing people all the time now and no one is being held accountable. The risks are being borne by the soldiers and the people living in all the countries we're operating in. The policy makers don't have much to worry about.

:shrug:

What about the ones that are scrutinized on the super subcommittee that will take the blame if things go wrong in this deal for "caving"? Hopefully, President Obama and the WH are paying attention to the possible frustration and fallout.

Putting SS and Medicare on the table indicates Obama is a reckless gambler. Unfortunately, he's gambling with other peoples' lives.

on that super sub committee. One of his best allies in Senator Kerry is already taking heat for being selected, and his "Democratic" liberal progressive credentials picked apart, when he should be working with Obama, not doing Reid and Baucus' dirty work.

Hopefully our president realizes that this is going to be a really tough job and not everyone will like the final result.

JAHO