Such things as the followings show the clear weakness of Obama. I think he is being genuine in seeking bipartisanship, but he does it by sacrificing any clear communication of facts and principles. That said, I prefer Obama’s preference of thoughtfully seeking a middle ground as compared to the superficial and anti-intellectual bluster of recent conservatives (Bush jr, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, etc.).
However, Obama does come off as very weak when he dismisses the Dalai Lama in order to seek the compliance of the Chinese which is one of the most oppressive governments in the world. Obama was the first president to refuse to see the Dalai Lama. I’ll never forget that act of moral weakness. I’ll give Obama the opportunity to prove himself politically, but from a moral perspective he has shown himself to be just another politician.
Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the US economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.