The Times cites "... a sense of disconnect between the projections of the [Obama] White House and the grim realities of everyday American life," while the Washington Post reported that "the worse-than-expected data fueled doubts about whether the Obama administration had adequately sized up the challenges it faces." Neither paper mentioned Bush.
While forgetting to mention that the fourth quarter of 2008 occurred during the Bush's presidency, the U.S. news media gave Bush much credit for Obama's announcement that he will withdraw all U.S. combat forces by Aug. 31, 2010.
Various news outlets cited Bush's Iraq War "surge" as the reason Obama could pull out troops. "In other words, Bush gets credit for Obama ending an unnecessary war that Bush launched almost six years ago, while Obama is faulted for the 6.2 percent drop in the GDP under Bush," Parry.
All of this provides the perfect paradigm of what we read and hear is not what we see before our eyes. This skews public opinion badly, and the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the right-wing propaganda machine and a biased press.
At the same time there are some deep reservations about the Obama administration, and some of the concerns of the GOP may be genuine. For example, is this a good time, during an economic crisis that is, perhaps, the worst since the Great Depression, to tackle the issue of universal health care?
Would our country be better served if the $634B destined for health care be spent on our aging infrastructure? The latter serves three purposes. Such a plan would put thousands to work, would provide them and their families with health care, and our bridges and highways would become safer. We would be replacing 60 to 90-year old tired technologies.
Some of the actions of this administration are downright scary. Recently, the Congressional Budget Office released figures that predicted that Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over the next ten years. That is over 4% of the GDP and such a level of deficit spending is not sustainable.
The White House insisted that the flood of red ink won't change its costly agenda. All of this is a cause for concern, deep concern.
To the unbiased observer what is recorded here are extremes. Extremes never work. One side is accusing the President of being a "commie" while calling for civil war. The other side is engaged in unbridled spending which could cause our nation to fall into the abyss of a failed and bankrupt state.
The answer lies somewhere in the middle. We don't need fiery rhetoric from the GOP. We need good ideas from the GOP. We don't need a token and short-lived attempt at bipartisanship from the Obama administration.
We need a genuine sharing of ideas with the loyal opposition from the Obama administration ... and some moderation.
Republicans need to come to grips with a major problem. The Democratic Party controls both Congress and the White House. Judicial liberals may soon control the Supreme Court.
They need to rid themselves of a false assumption and dedicate themselves to helping our country in a dire time. The false assumption is that if Obama succeeds in breaking the grip of our economic woes, Republicans will lose the elections of 2010 and 2012. That is not necessarily true.
If they are able to develop some constructive proposals to get us out of this crisis, they will be able to campaign on that basis in those elections. Actually, the reverse is true.
If Obama and the Democratic Congress are successful in mitigating the economic crisis while the GOP merely plays the role of obstructionists, the GOP will be buried in lost elections for a decade or more. In actuality, Republicans should fear that possibility more.
Tough times never last. Tough people do ... Robert Schuller
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
