Is it too soon to speak of the Bush-Obama presidency?

Symptoms of the Bush-Obama Presidency
The Saved and the Sacked
by David Bromwich
August 18, 2011

The record shows impressive continuities between the two administrations, and nowhere more than in the policy of “force projection” in the Arab world. With one war half-ended in Iraq, but another doubled in size and stretching across borders in Afghanistan; with an expanded program of drone killings and black-ops assassinations, the latter glorified in special ceremonies of thanksgiving (as they never were under Bush); with the number of prisoners at Guantanamo having decreased, but some now slated for permanent detention; with the repeated invocation of “state secrets” to protect the government from charges of war crimes; with the Patriot Act renewed and its most dubious provisions left intact -- the Bush-Obama presidency has sufficient self-coherence to be considered a historical entity with a life of its own.

The usual turn from unsatisfying wars abroad to happier domestic conditions, however, no longer seems tenable. In these August days, Americans are rubbing their eyes, still wondering what has befallen us with the president’s “debt deal” -- a shifting of tectonic plates beneath the economy of a sort Dick Cheney might have dreamed of, but which Barack Obama and the House Republicans together brought to fruition. A redistribution of wealth and power more than three decades in the making has now been carved into the system and given the stamp of permanence.

One of the last good times that President Obama enjoyed before the frenzy of debt negotiations began was a chuckle he shared with Jeff Immelt, former CEO of General Electric and now head of the president’s outside panel of economic advisers. At a June 13th meeting of the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a questioner said he assumed that President Obama knew about the difficulties caused by the drawn-out process of securing permits for construction jobs. Obama leaned into the microphone and offered a breezy ad-lib: “Shovel ready wasn’t as, uh, shovel-ready as we expected” -- and Immelt got off a hearty laugh. An unguarded moment: the president of “hope and change” signifying his solidarity with the big managers whose worldly irony he had adopted.

Let us examine Obama, then, by the standard of his cabinet members, advisers, and favored influences, and group them by the answers to two questions: Whom has he wanted to stay on longest, in order to profit from their solidity and bask in their influence? Which of them has he discarded fastest or been most eager to shed his association with? Think of them as the saved and the sacked. Obama’s taste in associates at these extremes may tell us something about the moral and political personality in the middle.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175432/tomgram%3A_david_bromwich%2C_george_w._obama/

Just hateful.

i found it fascinating...and depressing.

:banghead:

unfuckingbelievable

Deleted

n/t

uncomfortable.


And ETA: Is that all you can contribute? Snarks about DUers with whom you disagree? Brilliant.

I'm agreeing with the OP -- which I said on the post.

If you were the "no comment" unreccer -- is that a step below snarking, since there's no ownership of the stance or opinion? -- I'm glad you've emerged into the light of conversation!

Welcome aboard! :thumbsup:

Or, maybe the ID could be a snark in itself.

Okay, busted. :blush:

And although I don't always 'confess' when I've unrecced (any more than I do when I rec), I'm not trying to be a phantom.

Seriously, I don't understand the posts that solely have to do with dissing other DUers, regardless of the side of the poster. I hate the "the Obama haters will be along any minute" equally as much as the "the Kool-Aid drinkers haven't weighed in yet" posts. They just seem so unproductive and petty.

There're too many drive-bys, instead of actual discussion here, over-use of the word "whiny," by those, well, whining a lot about anything they disagree with, etc., et al.

A constant pettiness, in lieu of conversation. Which is what we see in our politics, of course.

Disheartening.

:7

:hi:

Pity we can't unrec individual posts too.

;-)

;-)

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

* St. John Chrysostom

--Jim Hightower

* Squidbillies

;-)

:thumbsup:

Sid

not surprising though. thanks for posting.

The Sacked

Advisers and nominees with views that were in line with Obama's 2008 election campaign or his professed goals in 2009, but who have since been fired, asked to resign or step down, or seen their nominations dropped:

1. General James Jones

2. Karl Eikenberry:

3. Paul Volcker:

4. Dennis Blair:

5. James Cartwright:

6. Dawn Johnsen:

7. Greg Craig:

8. Carol Browner:

This frog has been on a slow simmer since '08.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and in case there is any doubt, yes, I unrec'ed as well (surprise!)

...on Health Insurance Reform and Financial Reform.

And those were notoriously... (ahem, cough)... how shall we put it?

The White House implicitly admits it when they focus on "competence" or implementation "success" with Bush policies rather than debating how their policy has been substantially different.

"We may be implementing the same crap but we are better at it..."