"He is a man-off -the -Mayflower"

Cite your own examples of news slant, right and left. Contribute your own take on the news.

"He is a man-off -the -Mayflower"

Unread postby ksp48 » Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm

In the "Obama walks on water" category, check out this column by Georgie Anne Geyer:
"Obama is at heart neither "liberal" nor even (his word) "progressive," but truly a return to the origins of the American character; he is a man-off-the-Mayflower, a business-oriented capitalist with sound personal morals and a leader who wastes no time in exquisite theorizing when he can be busy figuring out how to get things done."

She doesn't seem to think much of israel actually trying to survive either.



Judging the next 100 days
Georgie Anne Geyer
May 7, 2009
WASHINGTON -- For the last two weeks, an inordinate number of American journalists have been studiously analyzing President Barack Obama's "First 100 Days." No matter that this simply amounts to a press-induced and intensely self-conscious celebration of ourselves.

What is interesting is not so much the 100 days itself as the amazing fact that virtually every journalist who analyzed the president was filled with praise. Obama was everything from a brilliant speaker, to a sparkling thinker, to the man who has started to put the fractious Humpty Dumpty of our America back together again.

While I agree with much of that, I also think he has revealed something far more important in his speeches and press conferences recently: Obama is at heart neither "liberal" nor even (his word) "progressive," but truly a return to the origins of the American character; he is a man-off-the-Mayflower, a business-oriented capitalist with sound personal morals and a leader who wastes no time in exquisite theorizing when he can be busy figuring out how to get things done.

He has always been extraordinarily, but practically, analytical. Listen to some of the words from his remarkable speech at Georgetown University on April 14. Far from wanting to destroy capitalism, as some of the far-out Republicans still maintain, he says: "It is simply not sustainable to have an economy where, in one year, 40 percent of our corporate profits came from a financial sector that was based on inflated home prices, maxed-out credit cards, over-leveraged banks and overvalued assets."



Over and over in recent talks, he calls for responsible investing, for creating new rules that "punish shortcuts" on Wall Street, and indeed, for an entirely new leadership class, but one based upon the original values that moved a young nation. He sounds like one of the original Puritans, calling for an adherence to traditional standards, for goodness and purity, for businessmen who create things in place of speculators (Franklin D. Roosevelt called them the "money-changers") who create only havoc.

Then, just on top of his "100 days" speeches, came the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter and, thus, the opening of a seat on the court -- and the analyses were virtually unanimous that the president, far from selecting some "liberal" or attempting to pack the court in FDR fashion, would choose (New York Times) "a careful pragmatist with a limited view of the role of courts."

If one wanted to choose one example of where Obama resolutely stands and of whither he so surely speaks, one can again find it in the Georgetown speech, where he brings forth the parable from the Sermon on the Mount, seeking to build a house on rock rather than on sand.

The fact is Obama is profoundly, truly, congenitally moderate; he is a moralist, who applies the most simple and profound principles and ethics to the search for a new American architecture of global leadership and for a new philosophy of civics and citizenship.

What could such a man possibly do wrong? Well, unfortunately and despite everything, quite a bit! There remains in Obama an almost blithe assurance that, by simply delineating a problem and declaring its rightful answers, the American people will follow. We still do not know how he will respond when he comes up against a situation that he is unable to charm or reason his way out of.

To bring forth only one possible example of many that could suddenly arise out of nowhere to challenge his good thoughts, what if the new far-right Israeli government, which has already declared itself unwilling to follow American leadership on a two-state settlement for the Palestinians, should strike out on its own and attack Iran?

Here, as in other dangerous foreign policy areas, Obama has carelessly neglected to lay the groundwork for his policy, or to make it clear to a foreign government what he will put up with -- and what he won't. Should Israel attack Iran, what would he do? Would he, in fact, do anything at all? Could he do anything?

One can hardly wait for the second 100 days.

Universal Press Syndicate Georgie Anne Geyer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington.

gigi_geyer@juno.com
ksp48
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:34 pm

"He is a man-off -the -Mayflower"

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Return to More Bias and Arrogance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron