I have a question and I’m hoping someone else with “special” knowledge of these matters can answer it. Because I can’t, for the life of me, figure out these rules (sarcasm intended).
Barack H. Obama, who has spent the last many months bleating like a violated goat about the evil perpetrated by George W. Bush (used both middle initials in the interest of fairness) and who staked his entire presidential campaign on making that fruit as rotten as possible and hanging it around the neck of anyone who opposed him (first Hillary R. Clinton and then John S. McCain) (notice I continue the middle initial tradition — this is for the NSA — do not come to my house, please — I do not find you amusing), now declares that PROTOCOL and DECORUM trumps all other considerations? Am I missing something? Or, is that smell coming from somewhere else?
He CAN’T speak a WORD about what is going on in the Middle East? And this is because it’s TRADITIONAL that the incoming POTUS not speak? About ANYTHING?
The tradition of not speaking ill of the sitting POTUS applies (or, used to) to FORMER Presidents, not those about to take office. Where did this suddenly discovered tradition come from?
And, this is not about what position he might take — this is not about pro-I or pro-P — it’s about Pro-BHO. Is BHO merely a PRO at election politics who has no foggy idea what he’s doing? I get the distinct impression, as I suspect do others, that he doesn’t say anything because he doesn’t have the slightest idea what to say.
I’m sorry. The incoming President is prohibited from expressing an OPINION? That’s odd. Just a few weeks ago, he was expressing his opinion on anything and everything political and otherwise.
He has campaign planks on these subjects. Does he not stand behind them? He published them then and waved them in the face of his opponents (and the sitting President). Is he now mute on the same topics?
And this is because he WON the election? Maybe, possibly, if he had LOST the election. But, he didn’t. He WON. Now he’s days from his inauguration and suddenly he has no opinion because it might unsettle GWB’s delicate constitution?
When did he become such a reticent fellow? A fellow so respectful of the sitting POTUS?
What he seems to miss is that he always has a position and an influence, whether or not he speaks (for my money, he could stay this reticent for the next 4 years — but it’s not likely). His silence has an effect and is having an effect. He wanted to be POTUS. And so he is. What he says is important. What he does not say is important.
And, what he will discover quickly is, when you choose silence, others will fill that silence with what they wish and you, by not speaking, provide them that license.
Sorry, as POTUS, you don’t get to be “not wrong” by not choosing “a dog in that fight.” You cannot vote “Present.” BHO has had sugar daddy’s during his entire political career. Oops. Problem. Now he is the Sugar Daddy of all Sugar Daddy’s, the highest ranking political figure in this nation. There is no one there to pave the way for him. He IS him. There is no HIM higher than HE now is (not politically).
The buck does eventually stop, whether he wants it to or not. Because HE is now at the end of the buck-passing line, not tap dancing somewhere in the middle. Center stage. Spotlight. You asked for it, you got it time.
Anyway, maybe somebody else can explain this “protocol” to me. I, obviously, don’t get it.
Can you explain this “protocol” to me?
I find it, shall we say, a bit queer? That’s the British use of the word, so it doesn’t mean what you might have thought, not at all. It does not mean I’m calling him out as a wimp, or in any way suggesting the P word might apply (let’s just say it rhymes with another name for your kitty). It’s only a figure of speech.
But, certainly SOME word applies.
Can I get some help with this?
I, and the rest of the world, are waiting.
I mean, really, if he’s going to save the world on January 20th, is there something all that terrible about doing it a few days early? I can’t imagine anyone who would mind.
Bravo!!!
Very well stated.
“CHANGE” is coming. God help us all!
That word is “hypocrite” or maybe “oversold”.
IndieDogg, I’m sure you must have noticed we’ve been beating the bushes on this subject almost every day starting Dec 28th and 29th with my first two posts, and Scott most effectively continuing the charge since then.
So what can I say but, welcome to the fray asking “where’s Obama”, but that dog don’t bark.
However we’ve all expressed the myriad of reasons and/or game plans multiple times over. So perhaps I’ll give you a summary of a weeks worth of comments in one fell swoop.
One of the more unique theories that may play out came from blast.. his “flush the toilet” theory from the Dec 29th post.
Scott’s post on the 30th documents the split in the Democrat party, as well as Obama’s appointees, on which side of the line drawn in the sand he should place his pinkies. Many agree with the Bush admin that Israel is justified, and the goal a smart one.
Obama apparently doesn’t want to agree publicly, tho he has stated previous support for Israel under such conditions during his campaign.
By Scott’s post on the 30th, he was blatantly labeling it political cowardice. This has received the most common nod of approval… expressed in everything from voting “present” to the inability to make a decision, or political paralyzation.
By the time Scott gave it it’s daily mention in his post on the 31st. we were all too distracted … no, make that appalled … by Obama’s knees to bother to ponder further…. LOL
New Years Day plus one, we all gave ourselves a needed two day rest from wondering about Obama’s silence. But by Jan 3rd Scott was back at it with a vengence….
There, Mike and Scott think he supports Israel but remains silent because he’ll alienate his supporters with opposing views. The far left Obama brigades want him to speak out against Israel, and the not so far left do not. Thus the splits in the Dem party – Scott’s theme of late. Has merit. As Biden said, it will not be “apparent” Obama is “right” in decisions they are not going to like when he’s tested.
This is also where I came on record with just the opposite opinion. I am not convinced of Obama’s unmitigated support for Israel. And, in fact, he may be keeping silent so as to not put out a future US policy diametrically opposed to the current admin’s. In which case, his silence is very appropriate.
Only then would this bring into play what you believe is “protocol”… a gentlemanly rule (broken often of late) by past POTUS not publicly criticizing each other. But that “protocol” isn’t the issue here. What the issue is the transition of power, and the potential void inbetween.
If what I believe is true, there is a gap of US response for events that transpire for what is known to be two completely different foreign policies. Bush is unlikely to take military action to support Israel, and if Hamas knows Obama’s going to be their guy, they may take advantage of knowing what’s coming down the pike while Bush is unable to act effectively as a CIC.
If Obama agreed with supporting Israel, it would be simple to repeat his campaign talking points, softened a bit for the “one POTUS at a time” bit. But to do so will alienate what he hopes is Muslim approval for future peace endeavors – a pipe dream at best. Yet his silence is eroding that daily anyway.
On the flip side, his hesitance to support Israel is eroding their trust of him as well.
By straddling the fence, he is doing little to improve his status being middle of the road. Neither side will allow him to be “Switzerland”, so to speak.
By the time Scott got around to his second post on Jan 3rd about Obama’s silence, there’s a few of us now admitting we’re basking in the Obama void – meaning NOT hearing what Obama has to say. Perhaps this has more to do with the fact we’ve been talking about Obama *not* talking for over a week now.
I can understand you’d like to get answers on the hows and whys of Obama dodging the plate on this. But there is only one fact for you to digest… Obama ain’t talking until after he’s sworn in. Perhaps it’s a build up suspense moment as he’s a big “show” man… who knows. But until he formally weighs in, everything is speculation.
So I guess your choices are varied from the above.
1: flush the toilet theory
2: incapable of making a decision or politically paralyzed to do so
3: a coward who wants to be loved by both sides in the conflict
4: a POTUS who will be changing the long time official support for Israel by encouraging them to go back to pre 1967 borders and acquiescing all to Hamas.
I’d say pick one, and cool your jets for awhile until Obama decides to tackle his job en toto. But were I to wager an assessment of Obama’s foreign policy leadership ability – and assuming he does support Israel – I’d say he’s exhibited extremely poor judgment in his first test merely by remaining silent.
Mata
There is also theory #5. He stands with the muslims and jettisons Israel entirely. He said so in his book. He is silent now because he doesn’t want anything to interfere with his inauguration. He will announce his position after he is sworn in but it doesn’t look good for Israel. I am deathly afraid of what this guy will do to this country. His past is full of everything I am opposed to: A muslim background, a marxist influence from all directions, terrorists and radicals for friends, absolute thievery in winning the election, black liberation religion in adulthood. I could go on and on but these are the highlights. I do not trust him when he is silent or when he is braying. He will be a disaster. I am still shell shocked that this country elected a man named Barack Hussein Obama, a former (?) muslim while we are at war with radical Islam and a majority of dems in congress when they are responsible for the economic situation we are in now.
Barbara, you are right. Obama is with the Muslims. No doubt about that. If he was for Israel, he wouldn’t have shut up. He would have come out in the open and said it loud and clear.
The “toilet flush” theory is the most ridicule one of all. Obama loves the Palestinians and he sides with them. How can someone doubt that evidence?
One of the reason why he shuts up is because he fooled the Jews that elected him and he knows he need their support for 2010 and 2012 and even for the 2009 inauguration when he will be asked to provide proof that he is eligible to be POTUS, he will need everyone to side with him. This guy is only trying to save his skin right now. That’s it, that’s all… as simple as that.
Barbara you are right on all points. You succinctly describe how many of us feel. I guess we will just have to grit our teeth and then hope the GOP gets it together, starts fighting back and goes all out for Palin or somebody like her. We will not be watching the coronation on the 20th in our house as the adulation just makes our blood pressure rise.
When will Americans become smart enough to research and find the truth themselves..The state of this country results from long term careful, deliberate planning, outlined below and in articles on my website. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.
This is found several places online. I wanted to delete some but it seems almost ALL have been accomplished! COMMUNIST GOALS (1963)
Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963 include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,”… an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
Mata note: Not to cut your post short, Marion… but instead of posting it in it’s entirety, here’s a link for those who’d like to read the Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record.
Or… in our new YouTube world, you may prefer the video version of the same below.
And thanks for the reminder, Marion. Always good to keep bringing this up for those with short memories. Tho I do not believe their “connect the dots” skills are much to speak of.
“Traditional” my butt. This unqualified, brainless Chicago thug creation doesn’t know what to say, what to do or how to act. It’ll be a damned dangerous four years.