Eccentric Flower:200906/Sane

From Eccentric Flower

«June 2009 «Eccentric Flower

Sane

Barack Obama interviewed by CNBC. Cherce bits:

HARWOOD: But when you add it all up - AIG, Citigroup, Fannie and Freddie, the auto companies, executive compensation guidelines - do you ever wonder that it's just too much messing with the engine of capitalism, and that it's going to get hard to stop messing with it?

Pres. OBAMA: No. And I'll tell you why. Most of these interventions didn't start on my watch. So the auto companies, let's take as a good example, when I came in, we had already put in - not me, but the previous administration had already put in $10 billion to shore up the auto companies and asked nothing for - in return. Now, I had three choices. I could continue giving them money without asking anything in return, I could let them liquidate in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, or we could say, "We don't want to run your company. Would you show us a plan that allows you to stand on your own two feet, so that what we're providing is a meaningful bridge for you to get to a better future?" We chose option three. That's not something that we welcomed, and the sooner we can get out the better.

[continuing after interruption by buzzing insect]

Pres. OBAMA: And I would love nothing better than to let the auto companies operate, thrive, manage themselves without us being involved. Financial regulation, I think, is different, because what we've proposed is to essentially update those regulatory tools that existed back in the 1930s that were put in place after the Great Depression to increase transparency and openness. But I think everybody would acknowledge that if we've got rules of the road, that's what makes American capitalism thrive. That's why people invest in this country because they have confidence that, if they read a prospectus, somebody's made sure that what's in there is true. If they take out a loan, that there are laws in place to make sure that they're protected.

And, you know, unfortunately the growth of the nonbank sector as well as all the complexities and financial instruments outstripped those old regulatory regimes. If we can get that right, that, I think, is a permanent improvement that will enhance and not impede the operation of the free market.

He trusts the marketplace more than I do, but he trusts it far less than a freewheeling capitalist would. He's smart enough to realize that they need regulation or they piss in everybody else's water. Yet he maintains essential optimism that it can work. I suspect he's probably wrong; I suspect any regulation which emerges from the sausage factory of Congress is going to be compromised, corrupt, and ineffectual - but I respect him for making the attempt.

On Iran:

Pres. OBAMA: Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.

The second thing that I think's important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is, "Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling." And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach.

[Emphasis mine]

On media favoritism, just because it made me smile:

HARWOOD: Last question. When you and I spoke in January, you said - I observed that you hadn't gotten much bad press. You said it's coming. Media critics would say not only has it not come, but that you have gotten such favorable press, either because of bias or because you're good box office, that it's hurting the country, because you're not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies. Assess that.

Pres. OBAMA: It's very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.

I am not always going to agree with the man. I find some of his stances (DOMA, anyone?) absolutely appalling. I think he is overly optimistic, overly idealistic, and in over his head. I think he is not going to provoke great change, the way some of his more fervent supporters apparently do.

But, my god, it's such a relief to see someone whom, even when he decides to move in a direction I don't like, has clearly given the matter thought, who appears to be honestly trying to do the sane thing. Someone who I can lambaste for being a wuss about Iran, who can then explain his decision well and lucidly enough that I am now convinced he's right. Someone who can not only make a aware decision but justify it.

(Now if he just wasn't so swayed by his own personal feelings on certain "moral issues" - DOMA, anyone? ....)

Whether he will achieve his goals - whether all of his goals are even worth achieving - is a matter for considerable argument, but I feel like there must be some credit for the attempt. Especially after eight years of someone whose lifetime goal appeared to be to use his brain as little as possible, and had considerable success at achieving that feat.


<< older | © 2009 columbina | newer >>


Comment:



Peebles:

I have a hard time believing that Obama is actually morally opposed to same-sex marriage. (I can, however, believe it's not a priority for him. And given the other stuff on his plate at the moment, maybe it shouldn't be.) In addition to being thoughtful and equivocal, Obama is also a masterful politician. I think he recognizes that he doesn't have the political capital to be in favor of gay marriage during his first term. If waiting four more years for a repeal of DOMA means that we get to avoid the horror of a Palin-Huckabee administration, I'll wait quiet with my hands folded, boy howdy.

-- 18:52, 17 June 2009 (BST)


ProfRobert:

"But, my god, it's such a relief to see someone whom, even when he decides to move in a direction I don't like, has clearly given the matter thought, who appears to be honestly trying to do the sane thing."

You know, I have an analogous thought with some judges I've appeared before. They've read the briefs, they've asked me intelligent questions at oral argument, they clearly understand the issues and the argument I'm making, and they disagree. As much as I hate losing, it's a lot easier when I know they got my point, but just didn't buy it (even when I really believe I'm right) -- it's worse when it's plain the judge just didn't understand the argument or rejected it for the wrong reason. (Perhaps perversely, it's also discomforting when I win for the wrong reason -- I not only want to be right; I want to be right for the right reasons!)

-- 21:29, 17 June 2009 (BST)


Columbina:

I not only want to be right; I want to be right for the right reasons!

Story of my life.

-- 21:48, 17 June 2009 (BST)


Ursula:

Obama does things I disagree with, but in general I figure he's got good, considered reasons. If he hasn't closed Guantanamo yet, I know it's not because he thinks it's neat to torture people. The issue is complicated, he'll work it out. If Obama does the occasional sleazy or even kind of evil thing, I feel like he probably had a good reason for it... Like he's not doing bad things because he WANTS to, but because the world is complex and sometimes you have to do bad for the greater good, or because there's simply no good solution.

Jesus, it's a relief to have adults in charge, so I can afford to be lazy about following the news again. I HAD to become a political person during W's reign of terror, and it didn't suit me.

-- 02:34, 18 June 2009 (BST)

Personal tools
eccentric flower
fiction