Obama's Conundrum

“I wish I hadn’t said that.” How often have we all thought that? Certainly, some more than others but we’ve all said things that we wished we could have taken back. I would think our President is thinking along those lines as the chaotic climate in Iran continues to escalate. When the election results were announced and the protests began; Obama stated that there were no significant differences between the incumbent and alleged victor President Ahmadinejad and his opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi. The President’s statement, in my opinion, was a safety net of sorts implemented to maintain the possibility of future negotiations with Iran.

In light of the continued violence and statements made by those who are truly in charge, the clerics; that difference appears to become more and more significant. Ayotollah Ahmed Khatami, a senior cleric, declared in a prayer sermon (yeah, a prayer sermon) “that the government should punish leaders of protests, who were supported by the united States and Israel, strongly and with cruelty so it will be a lesson for everyone.” How very holy of him!! www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31564910/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa I confess that I originally thought that the President’s olive branch extension was a wise move considering the previous administration’s position proved to be fruitless. Well, my new position is a simple one: Screw them!!

A recent article in Newsweek entitled Theocracy and Its Discontents by Fareed Zakaria outlines the power structure in Iran and the possibility of its complete collapse. While President Ahmadinejad can promise to be receptive to the West’s new approach (which is bullshit anyway); the fact remains that he does not set foreign policy. Foreign policy is set by those men of God, the Guardian Council and its Supreme Leader, Ayotollah Ali Khamenei. The persistence of the protestors is perceived by many to be a serious blow to the religious regime. These protests are akin to those in 1979 which enabled these hypocritical bastards to assume control. “Although Iran is Shia and most of the Islamic world is Sunni, Khomeni’s rise to power was a shock to every Muslim country, a sign that Islamic fundamentalism was a force to be reckoned with.” Now, the very tactics employed by the late Ayotollah Khomeni are being used to bite his successors right in their holy asses.

The point of this article (I admit to being derailed) is that though Obama may be right when he says he sees little difference; it has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. It has to do with the fact that as long as the present regime, cloaked in religious dogma, has control; there is no chance of any reversal in Iran’s dealings with the U.S. They have long memories and vindictive tendencies. They will never forgive the U.S. for masterminding the coup of 1953 or its unholy alliance with the Shah preceding and following (not our finest hour) his removal from power.

Perhaps the President doesn’t need to retract his statement but clarify it. There is no difference, and there won’t be, until those men of God are removed from power. We have enough to deal with here at home with our own religious zealots who justify violence with religious rhetoric (abortion clinic bombings and murders). In regard to Iran; it may be prudent to step back and wait and see how effective these protests turn out to be.

Latest poll sends mixed messages

The results of a recent poll conducted by The Washington Post & ABC News were released yesterday. The results definitely sent some mixed messages while confirming other things as well. The problem I have found with polls is that regardless of the credibility; if you look hard enough you will find another poll with conflicting results. I have been guilty of that in the past. I was given poll results from Rasmussen, a credible source, and refuted them with results from a PEW poll. Since PEW polls have long been considered biased; my argument was a poor one. I digress. My point is that I advise you to view these results with a grain of salt.

Many of these findings indicate a favorable view of President Obama to date. The problem is that the bar wasn’t set very high to begin with. As an example: Though the percentage of Americans who feel we are on the right path to economic recovery has tripled since December of 2008; that rate is only 42%. The percentage of people who felt we were on the right course at the end of Bush’s term was a pitiful 15%. I am fairly confident that my local bartender could have improved on that rate. Another example would be that only 25% of the public blame the present administration for the current economic crisis. This is undoubtedly justified considering the problems in the banking, insurance, and auto industries were firmly established prior to his taking office. While I remain vehemently opposed to some of the President’s tactics; I have never considered him to be responsible for their failures. Approximately 70% of those polled blame excessive consumer spending (credit debt) and the Bush administration’s absence of regulation and oversight as being the main causes of this economic collapse.

The presence of partisanship is glaring in this poll. The percentage of Republicans who feel that the economy is continuing to erode is double that of the Democrats (thank you Sen. Gregg). They are also much quicker to place the blame on President Obama for his lack of action. To be fair; the Republicans were equally critical of the Bush administration for their lack of regulatory measures. There has been a sharp rise in optimism from both Democrats and Independents while the Republican level has remained constant.

President Obama’s approval rating continues to be favorable. Close to 66% feel that he is doing a good job while 60% approve of his handling of the economy. Last fall, an incredible 90% of Americans felt we were nowhere near economic recovery. That figure has dropped to less than 60% which I don’t consider a particularly encouraging rate but it is a drastic improvement. Perhaps the most impressive result for the President is that 64% of Americans still believe in his various plans. However, that number stood at 72% prior to his inauguration. Among Independents and Republicans, the confidence rate has dropped by 13 points regarding his stimulus plan and budget proposal.

While the poll suggests that the public remains somewhat optimistic; it will be interesting to see future results after the President delivers the details of his budget to Congress. Strong resistance is predicted from both parties concerning key elements of the President’s budget. How he fares with Congress will most definitely have a direct effect on the stock market. Evidence of that is the fact that after President Obama described in detail the dire condition of the auto industry; shares in General Motors dropped 25% yesterday. Personally, I am very interested to find out what transpires in Congress and what effect it will have on the market. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the next poll.

For a more concise view of this poll, visit http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_033109.html?wpisrc=newsletter.

Time to back off Mr. President

In my last article, I expressed my anger and concern regarding Treasury Secretary Geithner’s proposal to assert control over additional financial sectors other than banking. If I was worried about excessive government intervention then; I am incensed now. The actions of the Obama administration over the past two days in regard to the auto industry are further evidence of this new hands-on approach. As stated in the previous article: Our capitalistic system has always been based on the laissez faire premise. Translated; this equates to hands-off. I feel it is necessary to warn you that the material I have read pertaining to these latest maneuvers have raised more questions for me than answers. I fear this article will do the same for you.

According to the New York Times, General Motors’ CEO Rick Wagoner resigned yesterday due to demands placed upon the auto giant by the White House. It appears that in order for G.M. to receive the additional $6 billion needed to stay afloat; certain contingencies must be met. The resignation of Wagoner was one of those contingencies. Chrysler is also being subjected to these borderline extortion tactics. They have been ordered to form a partnership with Fiat, an Italian based corporation, within 30 days or risk falling victim to the wrath of President Obama. Chrysler is also required to reduce their unsecured debts significantly and cut their health care financial obligations. Does anyone else see the paradox here? The government is demanding that a corporation reduce their debt while they are in the process of seeking aid in order to remain solvent. I am very confused, again!

President Obama has stated publicly that in order for these companies to receive additional aid, there must be a “willingness to make some pretty drastic changes.” It would be difficult to find anyone that would disagree with that but I’m not sure they would approve of the President, or his “task force”, being the ones that decide which changes must be made. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were able to demand personnel changes in Congress whenever we feel they haven’t performed up to our standards? Say goodbye to the Senate Banking Committee. Adios to the House Committee on Appropriations. It is important to note that Wagoner’s successor will be Frederick A. Henderson; General Motors’ very own president and chief operating officer. Apparently, he had nothing to do with the failure of G.M. Does anyone else smell a witch hunt?

A related article in the Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama has named Edward B. Montgomery to be director of auto recovery. His primary responsibility will be to provide support for laid-off workers and their families. Unfortunately, Dr. Phil was either unavailable or refused the offer. Considering that Montgomery may very well be strung up on Main St. in Detroit; Dr. Phil made a wise choice. How the hell is Montgomery expected to oversee the recovery process of an industry when he is dealing with people who are no longer a part of that industry? Don’t say I didn’t warn you! I have done a considerable amount of head scratching while researching the events of these last two days.

I could go on and on searching for rational explanations to these moves. The problem is that I continue to come back to the same conclusion. This is all a ploy to satisfy Obama’s desire to control still more facets of our lives. In the case of the auto industry; Obama has basically demanded that Chrysler and General Motors ignore their contractual obligations to the United Auto Workers Union regarding health care. He has given each company 60 days to cut their health care contributions to retirees in half. I certainly hope this is not his idea of health care reform. If in fact it is, all he needs to do is to order an across-the-board cut in corporate contributions to health care. Since he is determined to insinuate himself into arenas that the government has no right being involved in to begin with; this method of cutting health care costs would be rather significant. Though I was originally a proponent of the President and his plans; I am quickly realizing that these plans were also designed to force unprecedented government intervention.

Netanyahu vies for control of Israel

Last evening, President Obama primarily addressed economic and budgetary topics in his press conference. I was surprised that more attention was not given to the inevitable problems he will have to confront regarding the new government being formed in Israel. Israel now has the capability of presenting even further problems for an already beleaguered president. Personally, I am entering unchartered waters in regard to the nuances involved in the precarious state that Israel has been in for generations. So feel free to weigh in should I veer off-course.

I was prompted to research this potentially problematic situation by an article in MSNBC News, as I often am. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29862967. The story revolves around the creation of a new government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister-designate and Chairman of the Lukid Party. He was given this task by Israeli President Peres in February of this year. He has wasted little time attempting to unite the various parties in order to gain complete control of the Knesset, the legislative branch of Israel. He has recently struck a deal with the Labor Party which is center-left. This is a significant accomplishment considering the Lukid Party is conservative. The Labor Party has joined the Shas, a conservative religious party, in siding with Netanyahu. As a result, the chairman of the Lukid’s negotiation team stated “Now, 53 members of the Knesset are bound by agreement to support a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu…” as reported by Globes, Israel business news.

Standing between Netanyahu and complete control of the Knesset is the Kadima Party headed by Tzipi Livini. In the past election, the Kadima Party won 28 seats besting the Lukid Party, which won 27. (Still with me?) Many believe that Netanyahu will be able to win over the Kadima Party since it consists of former members of both the Labor and Lukid parties. Should he pull this off, he will have secured 80 seats out of a possible 120 in the Knesset.

Where am I going with all this you ask? An Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu presents several obstacles to Washington’s quest to establish a two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Netanyahu is not an advocate of this two-state system and his Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman (must be the name) is “fervently anti-Arab.” While the Obama administration vows to work with whatever government is in control; its primary goal would appear to be out of reach. Part of the problem is that Netanyahu has cautiously begun negotiations with Syria. This is where it gets very interesting or very confusing; depending on your knowledge of the history between the two nations.

In the 1967 Six Day War; Israel was able to obtain the Golan Heights which is considered to be very important strategically. As part of the newly proposed negotiations, Syria would like the Golan Heights returned to them. 70% of Israelis vehemently oppose this move. Also as part of the agreement, Syria has insisted that Israel return some of the land it acquired in the war to Palestine as well; namely the West Bank. Hold the phone! Netanyahu has an almost pathological hatred of Iran, as do most Israelis. He feels that concessions previously made have already jeopardized the security of Israel. He cites the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and from the Gaza Strip 5 years later as examples. For more on the fascinating story of The Six Day War; I recommend you visit http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/six-day_war.html.

It is impossible to encapsulate the party differences, historical precedents, and omnipresent conflicts in a single article. So I will return to my original point. While we, as Americans, would settle for a modicum of bipartisanship; Netanyahu is seeking complete and unabated control of Israel’s legislative body. Should this transpire; President Obama will be faced with yet another dilemma. Can he continue to negotiate for a two-state solution at the risk of alienating our only ally in the Middle East? Or does he simply acquiesce and allow them to sort it out? Given our history; I’m afraid the former is the route he will choose.