Another Bush Failing Embraced By Obama

In 2006, then Senator Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling saying the following:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops herre.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem [not a spending problem]."

[And that was when the debt was 'only' $8 Trillion. Since then Democrats have pushed it well past $14 Trillion and is still going up fast. (Remember that these 'cuts' we're hearing about only reduce this year's debt by a small percentage. These decreases in spending will still keep the debt going up until the first year we spend LESS than we take in. I'm guessing we won't have a balanced budget ... ie, START actually reducing the national debt ... for another twenty years. Think about that!)]

Fast forward to today, April 11, 2011, when Obama is president and declared the following:

"Raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this ecnomy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administrations's policies, you can play around with."

It's NOT okay to "play around with" raising the debt ceiling when it's Bush and a Republican congress doing it but it's completely okay when it's Obama and Democrats in congress doing it. Then (2006) it was by definition stupid, irresponsible and an abdication of leadership to raise the debt ceiling. Now by definition it's smart, responsible and leader-like to do so.

The Media has been trying to convince us for the past 3+ years that everything President Obama does is smart, responsible and leader-like by definition. Now they have a problem however. There's no way on this issue for The Media to nuance both of Obama's positions as senator and president into being entirely correct. It must be painful for them to report on this flip-flop.

In defense of his new-found (ie, flip-flop) support for raising the debt ceiling President Obama said in effect that one cannot know the importance of things like this until they become the president. Is that so, sir?

Well, we've heard a lot of that explanation while Obama has been president. While Bush was president, Obama criticized and opposed nearly all of Bush's policies. As candidate Obama said he'd reverse all those bad things he was so critical of. And his motto reflected that promise ... "Hope and Change". Remember how that was directed primarily at Bush's policies? How many of the Bush policies of which he was so critical has he changed as he promised?

Close Guantanamo? Nope. Change terrorist trials from military tribunal to US Courts? Nope. Stop rendition? Nope. Get out of Iraq faster than Bush promised? Nope. (As a candidate Obama said he'd get troops out of Iraq 6 months faster than Bush's plan. A couple months after becoming president Obama quietly changed it back to the same date Bush has planned. Now, he's considering keeping them there longer!) Wrap up Afghanistan and get out quicker than Bush was doing? Nope. Do away with the Patriot Act? Nope. Fix the economy and get employment under 8% in six months? Nope ... not even close. Fix Social Seurity, Medicare and Medicaid and make them solvent? Nope. (In case you hadn't noticed, his health care reform only postponed(!) medicare's insolvency by about 15 years and he's done nothing to fix either Social Security or Medicaid.) Get the national debt under control? Nope. (In fact, until last week he still wanted to keep spending lots more than the government takes in.) Lead a new spirit of cooperation and reaching across the aisle? Are you kidding me? Until Republicans took back the House this year he refused to even talk with them. To them he said "we won so we get to do it our way" and to conservative Republican citizens who protested his policies he said "sit down and be quiet". Put an end to divisiveness? For sure, no. (Now he appears more cooperative but that's obviously only because Republicans took control of the House.)

There are PLENTY more examples but you get the idea. So, why should we be surprised that, as president, Obama flip-flops and now says that raising the debt ceiling is a good thing to do?

Also, by what kind of adjective should one compare his promises with his actions? Was he naive about what's necessary to run the country? Obviously! Was he more inexperienced than those who voted for him believed? Yes! Hypocritical? Yes, definitely. Close-minded? Yes. Arrogant? Yes. Acting like the president of ALL The People? Absolutely not. Partisan in his actions and words? ABSOLUTELY. Divisive in his actions and words? Absolutely.

The critical questions are these. Can he change his fiscal policies quickly enough to keep our country solvent (regarding debt and spending)? (They haven't worked so far. We're scary close to an economic collapse.) Can he actually change his attitude on various policies that most Americans oppose or are his shifts in that direction purely political expediency (until Democrats control everything again)? Will he govern more to the middle (we're a center-right country, remember?) or remain committed to the progressive agenda? Time will tell. I do worry what would happen should Democrats take back full control in the next election. If they do, it's more apt than not to be full steam ahead with the progressive agenda.