Ok Meeester President...

I warmed up with a few a topics and now I want to take on my next larger victim. Naturally, that victim would be the President of the United States of America, Mr. Barack Obama. I should had two things quickly before I begin this entry, I should first disclose that I did not vote for Barack Obama. I am not a democrat, that would be reason number one. Secondly, he is a joke, that's reason number two. A long time state senator from Illinois who has virtually no distinguishable record of accomplishment or legislative iniative he led or no record of challenging the corrupt status quo in Illinois.

But since he has beaten the Clintons a primary election and walloped Senator McCain (also not my favorite) in the general election, the voters thought overwhelmingly that he should be our president. Here is my post 2008 election analysis of how Obama won:

1) the GOP is in trouble. Like Barney Rubble trouble. 30 years ago mainstream Conservatism was on the ascent because people understood it had practical solutions to solving the challenges of the era : inflation, slow growth, high tax rates, energy crises, communism on the march, and decline in the relavance of traditional values (real or perceived). Now conservativism is associated with fiscal recklessness and profligacy at home and launching to protracted wars abroad (full disclosure: I supported these two wars). The oldest rule in politics is: you stay in power if you deliver peace and prosperity. The GOP delivered neither. And they lost

2) John McCain had the unenviable position of trying to distance himself from Obama the candidate and George W. Bush the previous president and party leader.

3) Obama was skillful in shape-shifting symbolic change, e.g. his change rhetoric and his race, with substantive change. By substantive change I mean Obama seeks to jettison the hyper-polarizing presidencies of Bill Clinton and George Bush and build one big all-inclusive tent. Or perhaps he means a sharp break from the policies of the past, even though by any objective measurement he has never been a reform politician. Nevertheless, the voters believed him


Anyway, on to the matter at hand. Democrats lambasted the previous administration as being needlessly unilateral and myopic. So we expected some degree of rapprochment towards some nations before which we previously did not share diplomatic relations. But two headlines in today's Associatied Press grabbed my attention today:


Obama extends hands to Chavez, Ortega at summit

and

US 'deeply disappointed' as Iran convicts reporter


We all knew President Obama would reorganise our diplomatic regime somewhat. But this?
Hugo Chavez has done nothing for the cause of democracy since his coup in 1999. He has stacked the parliament and provincial governorships with loyalists. He has eroded the independent judiciary. He has squandered the nations only major resource on sophisticated armaments, sponsoring the F.A.R.C, and meddling in the internal politics of his neighbors. All this while poverty and crime rates have skyrocketed.

And what on earth is the President doing here? Giving Chavez a "thug hug"? Is Obama trying to improve his street credit with the Latin Kings in L.A. or really get a chokehold on the Hispanic vote in 1012? This is crazy

I guess as long as you keep chasing imperialist ghosts like Chavez and Ortega, then the American Left doesn't really care about those other things they used to care about like disarmament, economic justice, and poverty. Take a look at the book President
Chavez gave to President Obama. The book's title translates as The Open Veins of Latin America; the subtitle is Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. Listen, a little a reflection and assessment of our past policies is always generally a good thing. But if the Left thinks that trade agreements and wanting other countries to uphold democratic prinicples and pluralism is tantamount to plundering a country or continent, then that reveals an appalling lack of clarity and perspective.

Meanwhile, a journalist is being convicted of espionage in a theocratic state, and the best our government can do is say it is deeply disappointed? What about referring the matter to the United Nations? What about insisting on a transparent judicial process where the world can see whether the journalist's rights are being protected? Where is the Nation magazine on this? the American Prospect? where are all the Lefty blogs about this? I guess if an issue doens't fit neatly into a anti-GOP or ant-Bush narrative, then they really don't care.

Add your comments below..