Obama and What People Think of Him

The Empty Suit. The Used Idea Salesman. The Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism. But what do others say? Elitist. Arrogant. Naive. Stubbornness. Thin-skinned. Narcissist. Argumentative.

My very first impression of Barack Obama was "empty suit": a thin resume with no business or administrative experience, no military or foreign policy expert, no legislative track record of note, no signature domestic policy expertise. Personable, even somewhat charismatic and able to deliver an inspirational, well-modulated speech, but leaving one decidedly unsatiated thereafter. But put him in another context, say, the so-called primary debates, and Obama looks like a fish out of water. There are many iconic moments, one moment being in New Hampshire when Hillary Clinton's reaction to being told that Barack was perceived as more likeable was a tongue-in-cheek "That hurt my feelings...". Barack curtly responded that Hillary was "likeable enough", a rather patronizing, inappropriate thing to say.

What surprised me was when I went to Internet search engines, there were at least a quarter million to 1.5 million hits (and climbing) on 'Obama' and many of those terms (e.g., arrogant). So my perceptions are not an outlier. (In fairness, Obama and his supporters defensively reject those characterizations and try to turn the tables on their opponents.)

Democrats in particular have been obsessed with symbolism and spin. Obama's exaggerated sense of self-importance is seen in his failed attempts to schedule a rally at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, a mere Presidential candidate wishing to identify with the powerful memories of Jack Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" and Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speeches. However, his transparent attempt to link his image with a young Jack Kennedy, whom was the last nominee to deliver an acceptance speech in a stadium in July 1960, is seen by the scheduling of his own nomination acceptance speech at a Denver stadium.

There are other incidents that underlie these terms. Obama said to his House colleagues returning from his overseas tour, "This is the moment...that the world is waiting for...I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Democrats claim that the quote is "out of context", that he was talking about America. Oh, I agree that Barack Obama paid lip service to the preposterous notion that the crowds had come out just to cheer America and to pretend that he hasn't observed overflowing crowds coming out to see him (versus others) at other times during the campaign.

One of the early ones to come to mind was Obama's query in July a year ago when he asked the crowd, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff." The problem is, few people, if any, had ever been to a Whole Foods, because there weren't any in Iowa. Most of them probably didn't even know what arugula is. Now, former White House chef Walter Scheib knows; Laura Bush some time ago decided to go organic (all produce, meat, and dairy), and I think I read somewhere that Whole Foods makes deliveries to the White House kitchens.

Now, if you had asked about corn ethanol subsidies, which Obama has supported and Senator McCain opposed, and the effects of using grain for fuel on food inflation, homemakers do know that the price of milk and eggs have gone up, and hog producers do understand it's tougher to turn a profit on higher feed costs.

Then there's the infamous Obama "bitter" gaffe. Perplexed by why rural, small-town Americans are not supporting him despite his economic policies which he thinks are in their own best interests, Obama speculated that they are responding to tough economic times by retreating into cultural issues like guns and scapegoating illegal aliens for taking jobs that should be going to them. But, for instance, guns represent a means of defending one's property and family, as crime increases in economic bad times. Lax enforcement of the borders not only makes it easier for farmworkers and housekeepers to enter the United States but hardened criminals. Liberal judges, running their own hidden political agendas, unilaterally redefine traditional concepts of marriage and family, and the cohesion of family is particularly important in getting through tough times.

And we aren't even talking about the uncertainties of Obama's knowledge and skills of dealing with the economy, the trade deficit, the operational deficit, trade, or global competition. Any marginal tax relief may be more than offset by energy cost surges as Obama's anti-drilling policies sustain an ever-worsening oil dependency on international oil sources. Will Democrats' usual failed responses of overregulation, trade protectionism, and uncompetitive business tax policies result in our becoming increasingly irrelevant in a competitive global economy?

But now it looks like Obama is try to emulate John Kerry's smears against President Bush and Vice President Cheney after the Republican Convention in 2004. Kerry said that he wasn't going to take [imaginary] challenges to his patriotism by two "draft dodgers" (as if they spent the war years at Oxford not inhaling!) In fact, President Bush repeatedly stated then, on the record, that he honored and thanked John Kerry for his service during the Vietnam War and said that his stateside National Guard service was not comparable with John Kerry's active service in a war zone.

Obama said: "Nobody thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face. So what they are going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Hey, Barack Obama! First of all, you may not know this, but Bush isn't going to be on the ballot this fall. By the Constitution, he can't run for a third term. You don't seem to know this, because you keep saying Bush is on the ticket; other people know, and they weren't even, say, a Constitutional law professor in the past...

Yes, McCain has real answers for the challenges we face; Barack, ask your 9-year-old daughter to teach you how to access John McCain's website on the Internet. You'll see, for instance, that John McCain thinks it's unfair that some Americans get discounted gold-plated health insurance coverage tax-free, but others have to fully pay the policies on their own, using after-tax dollars. John wants to enable companies to be market their offerings across state lines and thus increase competition. John is for allowing all people, not just the well-to-do, to enjoy the above-average returns of diversified investments in retirement vs. low-yielding T-bills papering over Democratic Congress' ever-widening federal deficits.

But you are telling the American people that John can't rely on 26 years of service in the Congress, a real record of bipartisan, reformist legislation (not just rhetoric), a hard-fought reputation for being thrifty with the nation's revenues, the broadest background of military and foreign policy experience since Dwight Eisenhower, a leading member of the Republican Congress which provided the first balanced budget after some 50 years of Democratic Congress overspending. No, you are alleging John McCain has to rely on racial attacks to defeat a flip-flopping, tax-and-spend, 3-year senator with the most liberal voting record since George McGovern. You have spent most of that time running for President, with zero military and foreign policy experience, no domestic policy expertise, no meaningful legislative accomplishments, a state senate record which includes some 130 "present" votes, and reckless foreign policy statements which have stirred the pot in Canada, Pakistan, and Israel, our traditional allies.

No, Barack Obama, the Republicans don't resort to dirty tricks or racial smears to win elections. Despite winning less than 15% of the black vote, Republican administrations have named strongly qualified blacks to high-profile, meaningful positions, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State.

Just a Third Bush Term? A Response.

The Democrats seem to believe if they repeat Obama's disingenuous mantra 'third Bush term' enough that the average American voter will internalize it:

• On Iraq, John McCain differs from the incumbent in that he has directly been in combat; he knows the horror of war firsthand. He also has a material stake in the military, namely two of his own sons whom are proudly sustaining the long McCain family tradition of honorable military service. He will insist on improved foreign intelligence, work more closely with our allies and international bodies, use military force only as needed, with a more credible, imminent threat to national security, and avoid long-term Iraq-like occupations. Given his military education and career, Senator McCain has a better understanding of military strategy, will challenge and not simply rubberstamp recommendations, and will hold the military brass accountable and on a shorter leash.
• McCain has publicly opposed or criticized the Bush Administration on a number of occasions, including the 2001/2003 tax cuts (for failing to constrain the spending side of the equation), the Medicare Drug Benefit, inadequate military staffing and strategy to combat insurgency during the Iraq conflict/occupation as early as 2003, Bush's leadership and management of the Katrina disaster, the interrogation techniques of prisoners in Cuba, environmental policy, and the administration's inability to hold down spending and veto wasteful earmarks, even in dealing with a Republican-led Congress.
• Obama ironically seems to be a closer fit with Bush in that both lacked military and foreign policy experience in assuming a national candidacy, they had/have no substantive legislative accomplishments on the national level, and they both had/have unrealistic expectations of bipartisanship in Washington based on their experience with state legislatures. (This comparison is somewhat unfair to President Bush because Obama does not have executive or business experience.) One might wonder, given the more challenging environment and problems of 2008, whether the nation has the time and patience for Obama to learn on the job and whether we might experience an even more serious mismanaged debacle than Iraq or Katrina.
• The Bush White House has worked closely with Congress and the Democrats on an infrequent and often contentious basis; John McCain has worked with the Democrats on a number of reform compromises (campaign reform, torture policy, lobbyist/ethics, climate change, and immigration) , often at odds with his own party, and was part of the bipartisan Gang of 14 which defused a Senate crisis over floor votes on judicial nominees. In contrast, Barack Obama as a state senator cast a number of "present" votes on politically-sensitive issues; a President cannot vote "present" but has to be willing to make the hard decisions, even unpopular ones. Obama has been voting in lockstep with the majority of his Democratic colleagues instead of challenging them, as John McCain did on his colleagues' use of earmarks. However, we do have a one moment of direct comparison: McCain in 2006 had invited Obama to a bipartisan group looking to strengthen lobbyist/ethics reform. Obama decided to leave the group in short order in favor of throwing his support behind the minority Democratic bill and letting McCain know of his decision via a press release. Was this an example of Obama's much-hyped post-partisan politics?
• McCain is his own man and had his own constituency when he competed with Bush in the 2000 primaries and defeated him by a large percentage in the New Hampshire primary. Over the 2008 primary campaign, he lost evangelical voters to Governor Huckabee and many media conservative voters to Governor Romney. He was a strong supporter of the surge strategy proposed by Bush at the end of 2006, but that's largely because the change in strategy accommodated McCain's earlier, consistent criticisms on the record. The unpopularity of McCain's high-profile advocacy of the surge resulted in the collapse of his frontrunner status last year. We know about McCain from his campaign slogan: "Putting the Country First"--not party, not himself, but our country. We learn about McCain from the Presidents he admires: the anti-trust populism and conservationism of Teddy Roosevelt, the leadership of Abraham Lincoln in reuniting our country and eliminating slavery, and the pragmatic conservatism of Ronald Reagan, whom compromised on payroll taxes and immigration. We know about McCain as a father by his refusal to exploit for political reasons his own Marine son's prior service in Anbar province. We learn about McCain's values from his books exploring the themes of courage, hard decisions, and character. We recognize how others perceive him by his unanimous selection as the 2005 recipient of the Eisenhower Leadership Prize for exemplifying the soldier President's integrity and leadership through "steadfast, thoughtful, and reasoned leadership in the Congress and for his distinguished public service throughout his life".
  

Obama and the Landstuhl Visit Cancellation

Background. Senator Barack Obama last Friday canceled an informally scheduled visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in western Germany, the largest internationally-based US facility and a key destination for wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon has published restrictions on access to the wounded to prevent their political exploitation; however, Senator Obama, in his official capacity as a national lawmaker, along with his Senate staffers, would be accommodated. Senator Obama declined to visit under specified restrictions, not on the basis of scheduling constraints, but from a concern that any visit would be misconstrued. The McCain campaign subsequently released an ad, noting that Obama declined to exercise his right to visit the nearby wounded, but did find the time to do his regular workout.

Senator Obama, stung by the criticism, noted that he had visited wounded soldiers and veterans at Walter Reed and elsewhere, without the benefit of cameras

Analysis. My first point is that our wounded soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq deserve, and to the best of my knowledge, receive first-rate medical care and rehabilitation. Our elected leaders should take an active interest in validating these objectives have been met and providing any necessary adjustments in funding, staffing or other resources. In addition, they serve as the surrogates of the American people in acknowledging and appreciating the group cohesion and achievements and the individual contributions, valor and sacrifices made by our injured soldiers and their buddies. The thoughtful, substantive attention of our elected members of Congress and national candidates to the needs of our troops and their families can help boost morale and reassure them that their efforts have not gone unnoticed and do make a difference to us.

I believe that Senator McCain, by suggesting that he would have made the time to meet the troops at Landstuhl, would do well to remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:10-14). No one doubts McCain's own injuries, sacrifice, and leadership under harrowing circumstances; no one questions his appreciation for and identification with our wounded personnel and veterans. However, he needs to be aware that others could perceive his reaction to Obama's faux pas as smug, self-serving, and condescending. I believe his campaign would have been better served by letting his own record of supporting military personnel and veterans in Congress, mingling with active-duty personnel, and visiting the wounded over the past 26 years, stand on its own merits. I would have limited remarks to my regret that the soldiers at Landstuhl did not get a rare chance to meet with Senator Obama in person and realize firsthand that support of injured soldiers is broad-based and cuts across party lines.

However, Senator Obama's reaction to the controversy is clearly defensive, disingenuous, and ultimately unconvincing. He is not the humble tax collector; the humble person would have admitted to making a mistake in judgment and apologized unconditionally. Senator Obama rattles off a number of unpublicized attempts he's visited wounded soldiers and veterans (which to me sounds more like the Pharisee) and then implies that we should be satisfied with his past efforts in this regard and realize that Landstuhl was just another hospital. But, first, we know that Landstuhl is NOT "just another hospital", but a key medical center for our injured soldiers abroad. We also know that Landstuhl was unoffically on his schedule: If it was unnecessary, what was the purpose of scheduling a visit in the first place?

We are also left with an image of a senator or campaign which had not done due diligence and was not aware of Pentagon restrictions on visits to Landstuhl, and there's no suggestion that the Pentagon was applying its policies arbitrarily. However, the Pentagon made it clear that as a US Senator, Obama had the right to visit the troops in his official capacity by himself or with Senate staffers. So the deal breaker was not being able to bring a campaign staffer? Why? Because the campaign was paying for that part of his trip, not the government?

Senator Obama's decision was unfortunate. As a candidate with at best marginal qualifications to be Commander in Chief, he missed a singular opportunity to connect to the troops in a meaningful way, to underscore his support for the sovereignty of and against terrorism in Afghanistan and the unpleasant consequences to any just cause: its human costs, and to guarantee that the US will stand by its military and veterans, long after bullets have stopped flying. It also calls into question the authenticity of his goal of a post-partisan politics. A post-partisan politician looks for a way to make things happen, not for an implausible excuse. When Senator Obama argues he withdrew from the planned visit to avoid making it political, methinks that Senator Obama doth protesth too much.

I think this is yet another incident where Senator Barack Obama seems thin-skinned, argumentative and shows questionable judgment. One example is the well-circulated photo where Senator Obama is shown with his hands folded together, pointed down, during the playing of the National Anthem (unlike the other candidates). The US Flag Code is quite clear about expected behavior, but instead of conceding he made a mistake, Senator Obama nitpicks that some critics have alleged the photo was taken during the Pledge of Allegiance. Then there was that on-again, off-again wearing of a flag pin (depending on his audience), where he, of the post-partisan persuasion, impugns the integrity and patriotism of people whom honor our national symbol by wearing a pin or otherwise honoring the flag, while questionably arguing by not wearing the flag pin, he is being authentically patriotic .

There was the long saga of Rev. Wright, where Senator Obama, in the aftermath of 9/11 when Republicans and Democrats stood together, failed to distance himself from Rev. Wright's unconscionable anti-American rant, and then, when sermons became an issue during the campaign, stubbornly stood by the pastor as a matter of principle, until the point when the minister criticized him as just another politician.

Finally, there's Senator Obama's longstanding refusal to concede the success of General Petraeus' surge strategy, fundamentally linked with anti-insurgency tactics. Senator Obama is more interested in symbolic meetings with leaders from rogue nations than in substantive discussions with military leaders on our moral obligation to achieve a peaceful, stable Iraq as a prerequisite for full combat troop withdrawal.