Stimulating the G20

 

He had them at bonjour. Anarchists and mainstream Europeans lauded the arrival of the ‘anti-Bush’ in London yesterday, as G20 leaders met to coordinate their cure for a crisis whose origins some would prefer to ignore. But not French President Sarkozy who noted Wednesday evening: “The crisis didn’t spontaneously erupt in Europe.”

 

Aside from the American President’s second questionable diplomatic gift, an iPod presented to the Queen, it’s the diverging opinion on how to solve the crisis making non-English headlines. The French and Germans are strongly opposed to Obama’s push for stimulus. Already overloaded with entitlement spending, they differ philosophically from a President whose budget wouldn’t qualify his country for EU membership.

 

The nonpartisan CBO contends that President Obama’s budget would incur a debt-to-GDP ration of 5.3 percent for the fiscal years 2010 to 2019. The President’s advisors have argued that his healthcare, education and energy initiatives would increase revenue, thus reducing the unsustainable deficits. But how will going green help spur corporate growth among factories and businesses whose taxes are bound to soar even higher than the tax rates which are some of the highest in the world?

 

Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi supports the French and German focus on tougher regulation, as opposed to unproven deficit-creating stimulus. In today’s column, La Repubblica’s Federico Rampini openly questions Obama’s leadership qualities by likening his ability to dictate the international agenda to former President Jimmy Carter. He called it a “historic low for America.”

 

France’s Sarkozy summed up the European opposition best—“We want a capitalism of entrepreneurs, not a capitalism of speculators.” The biggest crisis in a century wasn’t their fault, and although Obama is reticent to place blame, it’s clear and understandable why other leaders are eager to identify the cause. Because without acknowledging what went wrong, why and who is responsible, solving and preventing future disasters become impossible. Unregulated hedge funds and derivatives must be tackled.

 

According to France’s L’Express, the IMF was a big winner at the G20—its capacity went from $250 billion to $750 billion. In an attempt to demonstrate his concern for the third world, Obama additionally wants the IMF to sell off $20 billion of its gold reserves to help the poor in third world countries. Beyond making a compassionate impression, another motive might have been at play, as his budget calls for taking away charitable deductions from Americans making over $250k. Someone has to pick up the slack for Feed the Children. 

 

Bush bashers were eager to move beyond the cringe-inducing international summits of the past and into an era of change. While non-English speaking Europeans who aren’t keyed into U.S. political minutia continue to be wowed by his smile, presence and remarkable story, foreign leaders and dedicated observers are getting a clearer  picture.

Rough Week

With each day and each decision, the Obama Presidency grows more and more disturbing.

Just last week, before a joint press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, we were told not to mind that pesky 50% decline in our retirement portfolios.

“The stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you’re probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong,” he advised.

Tracking polls bob, but they bob between five and ten points max, and bobbing is rising and dipping, Mr. President. This market is dipping. It’s not bobbing up and down like a buoy in the water. Since your election, Wall St. is only bobbing down.

And speaking of poor Gordon Brown, he, along with the rest of the British public, left Washington disillusioned last week after learning just where Britain ranks on Obama’s hierarchy of countries. Middle of the pack. From the Telegraph:

… the mood music of the event was at times strained. Mr. Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade – a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr. Obama’s Oval Office desk. Mr. Obama’s gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.

Those critical of U.S diplomacy under Bush won’t be heartened by the new attitude at Foggy Bottom. Sunday, a State Department official responded to the criticism in the Telegraph:

“There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Stockholders, business owners, Europeans, and a more disheveled than usual Gordon Brown all had to feel a little less enamored with the American messiah. One group, however, had reason to sing and dance, if only singing and dancing weren’t forbidden to them.

On Sunday, in an interview with the New York Times, Obama expressed a willingness to reach out to moderates in the Taliban. I suppose by moderates, he means those Talibani who prefer hangings to beheadings or those ‘moderates’ who whip girls for educating themselves as opposed to burning schools along with their teachers.

‘Moderate’ wife beaters don’t exist, nor do ‘moderate’ al-Qaeda members. Using that term either underscores a cultural ignorance or a commitment to pacifism at all costs.

The most troublesome aspect of last week, however, wasn’t Obama’s minimizing of the ‘bobbing’ stock markets, his clumsy state visit with Brown or even his openness to ‘moderate’ Taliban fighters. It’s his approval rating hovering around 60%.

Obama is likeable, and in today’s American culture filled with ‘atta-boys’ and ‘good trys’, he might well have to cause WWIII to garner any scrutiny or negative judgments.

 

It’s AD Oprah!!!

Please stop.

I never watch Oprah anymore, but paused a moment while flipping channels. In between drooling over Obama and belittling Palin, Stephanopoulos addressed the BB/AB question. Oprah asked whether politics in America will really be seen as before Barack and after Barack, hence the BB/AB. Stephanopoulos agreed: we’re no longer living in AD; we’re in AB, honey.

Please stop.

For all of us trying to give Obama a break, despite his signaling the return of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, which would silence his critics in Rush, Hannity and Laura Ingraham, it’s becoming exceedingly difficult with the mindless cult-like behavior exhibited by his followers.

Please stop the insanity.

I’m living in AD, thank you very much.

President Sarkozy Fears Obama Victory

It’s a shame that the French President can see what fifty percent of Americans cannot: An Obama victory would radically undermine current efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

 

From Israel’s Haaretz:

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.”

 

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might “arrogantly” ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama’s positions on Iran, concluding that they were “not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open,” the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama’s advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

I understand the fury and frustration directed toward President Bush; however, it would be irresponsible to elect a candidate as arrogant and naïve as Obama. He has used the power of persuasion and soaring rhetoric to woo a self-interested American public, but surely he won’t persuade the dwarf or the Mullahs in Iran.

 

For sure Obama can look forward to sharing something of significance in common with Ahmadinejad. They both believe that God has sent them to save the world.

Obama: a Plant?

A friend forwarded me an e-mail detailing the possibility that Obama could be a plant, by going back through his past and examining various inconsistencies and troubling questions which have gone unanswered. Perhaps many of you have received these viral e-mails, like the one claiming Obama is a Muslim.

Come on. Conservatives need to stop investigating Obama, start looking at the polls and wake up. However entertaining, none of these viral e-mails addresses the real problem: the poll respondents who have him in the lead. Therein lies the problem.

Americans don’t care that Obama is a socialist; why should they care who planted him? Just this weekend, while greeting voters, Obama was confronted by a plumber who said, ‘you’re going to raise my taxes, aren’t you,’ to which Obama replied, ‘I just want to spread it around.’ That’s codespeak for socialism, Marxism and all the other redistribution ideologies that have failed over the last century or so.

The bottom line is this: Americans are ignorant and ill-informed. They believe Obama will be powerless to harm the country or their bank accounts, even though he will have both houses of Congress in his pocket to enact any tax increase he wishes.

Voters will get exactly what they deserve when they elect an anti-American socialist on November 4. Despite the complete and utter failure of the Bush administration, the polls shouldn’t be close. Voters should look at the impressive characters supporting Obama (Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad), at his background and philosophies, his past as a street thug intimidating banks to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them and his involvement with Acorn, Ayers and Rezko. And most importantly, they should examine his ideology.

That this election is close is a testament one of two realities: the stupidity of Americans, or their sudden embrace of Marx and wealth redistribution. Neither of the two conclusions is comforting.

In response to the financial crisis of last week, Russia’s communist newspaper Pravda headlined with ‘The triumphant return to the teachings of Marx and Engels.’  Perhaps on November 5, we’ll be staring at a similar headline in The New York Times.

Madonna and Phelps: American Culture on Full Display

Liberals often obsess over how the United States is viewed globally. Like elementary schoolchildren praying to be accepted by the ‘in’ crowd, they insecurely wait for Obama’s election and the restoration of their ‘cool’ status. U.S. foreign policy would show more deference to our allies, and presumably our enemies. Our warmongering would end. And finally, we would pass our mantle of the world’s most egregious polluter.

But routinely absent from their concerns and arguments about anti-Americanism worldwide, is the impact our culture has had on the image of the United States. In the Pew Global Attitudes project of 2007, 47 countries were asked about our culture, ideas and customs.

Pew asked:

“Which of the following phrases comes closer to your view? It’s good that American ideas and customs are spreading here, OR it’s bad that American ideas and customs are spreading here?”

Europeans answered definitively. They consider the spread of American ideas and customs damaging to their respective cultures. Eighty-one percent of French, seventy-six percent of Spanish, and fifty-nine percent of Italians reject American culture, and in looking at last week’s news coverage in Italy alone, that notion is entirely understandable. Photos of our gold medal winner celebrating by stuffing dollar bills in the thong of a Las Vegas stripper appeared in last week’s Corriere della Sera. And Sunday, it was reported in every major Italian newspaper, that our own queen of pop had dedicated her unfortunate hit ‘Like a Virgin’ to the pope in Rome over the weekend.

Today, the story appeared in the English language press. From London, The Times reported:

At her Sticky & Sweet concert on Saturday night, attended by 60,000 fans at the Olympic Stadium in Rome, Madonna introduced the song Like a Virgin — one of her earliest hits — with the words “I dedicate this song to the Pope, because I’m a child of God”. She added: “All of you are also children of God.”

That she was invited back to Rome is amazing. Two years ago, she staged a mock crucifixion at Rome’s Olympic stadium.

As for Michael Phelps, it isn’t my place to judge his behavior, but, in the context of examining how we are perceived abroad, it is a fair question to raise. Couldn’t he have arranged for his own stripper? Or, better yet, couldn’t he have held on a while longer, until the level of scrutiny on him had waned, before hitting the Vegas strip?

For many abroad, their only window into American culture comes through our films, television shows, and our music and pop icons. Sadly, last week, two of our most accomplished performers gave an ugly view, and validated the conclusions of many abroad who enjoy our entertainment but reject its influence.

As Americans, we shouldn’t just strive to move down the list of the largest environmental polluters. We should endeavor to dethrone ourselves, and end our reign as King of cultural polluters.

Obama’s Silent European Majority

Presuntuoso. Arrogante. Even if you don’t speak Italian, you can probably guess their English equivalents. Those were the first words my in-laws used to describe their reaction to the Democratic nominee for President. You won’t hear regular Europeans interviewed or their impressions discussed in the American press, but I can tell you, there are many more anti-Obamans present and unaccounted for in the old continent.

Presumptuous and arrogant. He already talks like he’s the President.

Their hunch is spot on. By finishing his world tour at a pep rally in front of 200,000 mostly German Berliners, Obama demonstrated his ability to tear down more than just racial walls. Apparently, protocol is another target. In the past, no other candidate for President has ever given a campaign speech in front of a foreign audience, called himself a ‘citizen of the world’, or lamented America’s misdeeds world-wide.

While most of the American press is drooling over the groundbreaking aspect to Obama’s run, in terms of race, and generalizing Obama’s European reception, they should instead focus on his revolutionary assault on what is acceptable conduct by a candidate for President of the United States.

Obama’s European Vacation

The site of the planned Obama speech in Berlin is generating a significant amount of buzz in the German press. The Obama folks and their socialist admirers wanted the Brandenburg Gate, a controversial choice for both Americans and Germans. As a symbol of German unification, many natives wondered how Obama had helped tear down the wall; after all, he was still a law student at Harvard. And as the site of one of the most historic addresses ever by an American President, many devoted Reaganites felt the mere idea was tantamount to sacrilege.

The Brandenburg uproar forced Obama’s posse to settle on the Victory Column, yet another controversial choice. Deputy leader of the free Democrats argued (from der Spiegel)

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”

Historical ignorance aside, the most disturbing part of the speech, is the speech. When has an American Presidential candidate ever given a campaign address in a foreign country? But more importantly, when has a foreign presidential candidate ever addressed an American audience? I can’t think of one, which makes me wonder why Obama has thought it prudent to stand before a European audience to rally admirers, most of whom aren’t eligible to vote.

And memo to the American press who will cover this speech, and who continue to mischaracterize Obama’s European support as widespread and sweeping: Europeans aren’t monoliths. Just because you might have spent two months at a foreign bureau, presumably sharing croissants with American journalists, doesn’t qualify you to make a judgment about Obama’s messiah status in the old continent. Just because Germans are disturbingly obsessed with Obama, doesn’t automatically correlate to an Italian fervor over a McCain defeat. There are many plausible explanations for the German-Obama swoon:

1. Perhaps as the most racist European country, Germans are suffering from ‘white guilt’
2. They hated Bush more than other Europeans, so they view an Obama victory as a Bush rebuke.
3. They heard rumors that Obama likes wienerschnitzel.
4. The largest portion of Obama admirers are former East German communists and recognize a fellow comrade when they see one.
5. They fell in love with Michelle Obama after she admitted to not previously being ‘proud of America’.

Obama to Make Berlin Speech?

To some conservatives, Obama’s habit of invoking Reagan’s name on the campaign trail in an admiring, deferential way, has come across as self-serving and transparent. I suppose it’s akin to former vice-President Dan Quale’s mention of Kennedy in the debate with the “what’s his name” he ran against the first go-around. Even though, honestly, I didn’t see the harm in it.

So, I’ll give Obama a pass for his opportunistic use of the father of modern conservatism’s name, though it’s tedious nonetheless. However, I wouldn’t be inclined to forgive a speech at the site of one of the greatest addresses by a President.

From Der Spiegel:

Plans for a visit by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic candidate for president of the United States, have moved forward — slowly — in Berlin, where he may give a speech before the Brandenburg Gate this summer.

Evidently, Germany’s ambassador is keen on making it happen.

Germany’s ambassador to Washington, Klaus Scharioth, has reportedly worked for weeks to convince Obama’s campaign that the candidate’s only large European appearance should take place in Berlin.

I wonder if the Ambassador has been in touch with the McCain campaign to inquire about his European schedule, if he has any. Hmmm. I’m also curious if there is any historical precedent for a US Presidential candidate making campaign speeches to foreign audiences.

Kennedy and Reagan both made major addresses, but on both occasions they were delivered by Presidents, not aspirational wannabes.

Update: Looks like the Chancellor’s office has put the brakes on the planned speech:

From Der Spiegel:

“The Brandenburg Gate is the most famous and history-rich site in Germany,” the Chancellery source said. In the past, the location has only been used on very special occasions for political speeches by world leaders. In the past, the location has been used only on very special occasions for political speeches by world leaders. And it has been reserved for use only by elected American presidents, not candidates. And it has been reserved for use only by elected American presidents, not candidates. The decision on whether the Democrat can speak at the location ultimately lies with the Berlin state government. The decision on whether the Democrat can speak at the location ultimately lies with the Berlin state government. Chancellery officials are concerned that the Brandenburg Gate could be turned into an “arbitrary stage” that other campaigns could also seek to use in the future. Chancellery officials are concerned that the Brandenburg Gate could be turned into an “arbitrary stage” that other campaigns could also seek to use in the future.

It’s a traditional practice for US presidential candidates to visit Germany before the election. It’s a traditional practice for U.S. presidential candidates to visit Germany before the election. However, the source pointed out that agreements can only be made with elected presidents. However, the source pointed out that agreements can only be made with elected presidents. The source also noted that a the German federal government would also be equally pleased to play host to a visit by Republican candidate John McCain. The source also noted that a the German federal government would also be equally pleased to play host to a visit by Republican candidate John McCain. The door is just as open for him, the source said. The door is just as open for him, the source said.

Wesley Clark: The Audacity of Stupid

From the Politico :

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron,” Clark said.
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Had the above criticism come from former Secretary of State Powell or Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf instead of a failed NATO chief whose chronic addiction to Presidential runs has proven tedious, the foolish outburst might have been taken more seriously. But given the erstwhile General’s track record, the disrespectful remarks just fit right in with his arrogant profile and his affection for fantasy.

In 2003, Rush Limbaugh gave us a history lesson, when he compared Clark to another wartime officer in Civil War General McClellan. It was a great psychological dissection, but I was more interested in Clark’s achievements as a prominent military figure in the 90’s.

As NATO chief, Gen. Clark, on the other hand, urged his Pentagon bosses to let him introduce ground troops into the war against Serbia, and he even was willing to use military force to stop the Russians from occupying an airport at Pristina, Kosovo.

But Gen. Clark was badly wrong on both counts. If he had not been overruled by his superior, there would have been unnecessary casualties resulting from the deployment of ground troops. And if his subordinate, British Gen. Sir Michael Jackson, had not refused Gen. Clark’s order to confront the Russian troops–who wound up cooperating with NATO peacekeeping efforts–the outcome could have been disastrous.

In 1994, while nearly one million Rwandans were being slaughtered, Gen. Clark advised President Clinton against America’s intervention, despite the U.N.’s unwillingness to stop the holocaust. But Gen. Clark speaks glowingly of NATO’s success in stopping Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing, for which Mr. Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And now, he dismisses the liberation of nearly 25 million Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s murderous rule as a Bush foreign-policy failure.

He reportedly circumvented both Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Henry Shelton on numerous occasions in speaking directly to the media and the president. In fact, the situation got so bad that Gen. Clark was relieved of his NATO position several months before his term ended, and in a major snub, neither Mr. Cohen nor Gen. Shelton attended his retirement ceremony.

Mr. Clark should take a moment of self-reflection before making any further ill-advised attacks. Does he honestly think anyone with an iota of intelligence would believe him over the scrappy, sometimes maddening, but always sincere, war hero who just might defy all odds to become President?

Something positive did result from the interview, however. ‘Face the Nation’, the Sunday show no one watches, might have three viewers next week instead of two.