Skip to main content

The fascinating double standard of being President-elect...

... is that you can issue detailed national statements on your economic bail-out plan, and even publicly call for Congress and meet with legislative leaders to pass specific legislation...

... but that as Israel actually invades Gaza, your position is that you're monitoring the situation closely, and--besides--we only have one President at a time, you know.

At this point it is even immaterial to me (from a certain perspective) whether Barack Obama is pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, or strictly neutral on the growing conflict--I'd just like to see him use that spine of steel to express an opinion.

Comments

Brian Miller said…
I'm sure he'll be getting right on that, after he finishes upbraiding Rick Warren for all those naughty things Rick has said in public. ;)
Delaware Watch said…
What if Obama's view is that Israel is acting like a shit and if he were to say so now, it would make Israel's actions worse in Gaza before Obama gets in office? I think it's possible that he is holding back because he doesn't want to make a bad situation worse by speaking out now. But I could be wrong.

I also think that there must be a line where a President-elect doesn't effectively tell a sitting Prez what to do. Where that line is admittedly difficult to determine. But foreign policy is mostly an executive branch function and domestic/economic policy is less so. So Obama is sending messages to Congress about the economy but not to Bush about foreign policy. It's a fuzzy matter, I admit, but that might be the kind of distinction Obama is working w/.
Brian Miller said…
You seriously expect a "do whatever the polls say" guy like Obama to say something negative about Israel?

Seriously?!?

Never, ever gonna happen. Ever.

Even criticizing the actions themselves won't work -- as I've been informed even by some commenters on these sites, demanding an end to indiscriminate bombing of civilians by BOTH sides apparently makes one the love child of Hitler and Stalin.
Dana,
I'd like to believe that, but I don't.

For a man who said in debate three that the US should not stand by while genocide occurred (you will recall that you and I had differences on the efficacy of such interventions), to stand by now without at least raising his voice against the use of US weapons to target Gaza is, to me, more important than an impact on the Israeli elections or the tradition of not contradicting a sitting president on foreign policy.

Ask yourself this: how will Obama have any credibility to take on Israel's actions after 20 January if he continues to remain silent now?
Bowly said…
Mark your calendar: I agree with Dana--the second paragraph, at least. Look back to campaign rhetoric, even. Obama's healthcare plan was certainly more detailed than any foreign policy plan. And the further removed from direct US involvement an event was (i.e., anything not named Iraq or Afghanistan), the less specific he was.

This is true of most candidates, by the way. Aside from some Iraq policies and McCain's "Bomb bomb Iran," rare was the direct foreign policy pronouncement. "I'll talk to the leaders and make things better with my superior diplomatic skills" was the normal bullshit response.

I can frankly understand his reluctance to say something that could force the US into a tense situation that would have to be handled by the sitting president. I find this silence on this far less damning than his silence on Prop 8.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...