Dow Drops 5.5% Yet Obama Still Doesn’t Blame GOP for Economic Turmoil

In its explanation for downgrading the USA's debt instruments, S & P basically indicted the Congressional Republicans and placed the majority of the blame for the downgrade decision on the GOP. One can debate the merits of S & P's decision, but with the path made ready for him Barack Obama STILL could not show that he has a spine and confront the GOP's irresponsible recklessness. Instead, he blathers and talks about "Congress" needing to act - and the Dow continued to plummet. What the nation needs right now is a LEADER with a backbone and a vision. In Obama we have neither. In a column on CNN, David Gergen has a column that makes the case that the USA needs a leader like Churchill who can "inspire his people to fight to the end" and "banish fear and steady a country." Instead of a Churchill, we have another Neville Chamberlain. I share John Aravosis' frustration at America Blog when he states:

I'm watching a tape of the President's remarks today about , and he once again failed to blame the Republicans for any of our problems (just as Geithner failed to do it last night). It's "Washington." No it's not. It's the Republican party in Washington. But in any case, what does that even mean, even if it is Washington? All the President is willing to say is it that it's people who put their party first? Well, that pretty much defines everyone in town, which is I think is his point.

The President is once again trying to cast blame on everyone but himself, and by everyone, I include - he includes - the Democrats in Congress, who are just barely hanging on in the Senate. The President's continuing effort to cast blame on "Washington" and "Congress" has to be hurting Democrats. He's been doing this for years. And now, we face a GOP that is as nutty as its ever been, and it's threatening real disaster, but the President can't find it in himself to blame them by name. That of course didn't stop the GOP presidential candidates from blaming the S&P downgrade on the President.

Andrew Sullivan in contrast - who as I've noted before was far behind the curve in terms of recognizing the toxicity of Bush/Cheney and the GOP - continues to stand by Obama:

[I]f you want to change that hideous dynamic, rooted in the 1960s culture war, you don't repeat it. You defeat it by consistent, relentless reason. Obama will be a transformative president only if he pulls this off, because he will have transformed our political culture for the better. As for his re-election campaign, just watch. The man has a long record of George HW Bush competence and quiet governance, but unlike GHWB, he can also unleash rhetoric that obliterates his opponents. Imagine a debate between him and Perry. Christianist swagger vs Christian calm. This is not weakness. It is a deeper form of strength.

I respect Andrew in many respects, but on this I think he's flat out wrong. Soaring speeches are not going to win back those who have said that they're "done" given Obama's lack of leadership and spinelessness. Too many Americans know know that Obama is all talk and no action. He may give pretty speeches, but that is all we will get. A Churchill would give speeches followed by action and not stop at talk devoid of action. I'd remind Sullivan that John Kerry ran circles around the Chimperator when it came to giving speeches, yet Kerry lost to the dullard. I for one want a primary challenge for the Democrat nomination so that we can hopefully find a Democrat with a spine and who is willing to lead and not be a follower and a lousy one at that.

Chimperator Bush vs. Winston Churchill

Chimperator Bush likes to think of himself as a War President and apparently may view himself as another FDR or Churchill. Other than in his delusions, he is clearly neither. As for Churchill comparison, here is an interesting and humorous story about Churchill's drinking habits versus the Chimperator's via The Van Der Galien Gazette (http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/the-power-of-alcohol/ ):

As we ‘re inundated with quotes from Robert Draper’s revealing book on Bush, I kind of enjoyed this one, on drinking:

Discussing his past battles with alcohol, he says he would never be able to make decision on war if he was still drinking. “Exercise helps. And I think prayer helps,” he says. “I wouldn’t be President if I kept drinking. You can get sloppy, can’t make decisions. It clouds your reason, absolutely.”

Wasn’t the War on Terror modeled after the struggle against Nazism? And didn’t Sir Winston Churchill make a resounding re-entry in the daily lexicon after the events of 9/11? What would the world have looked like if Sir Winston had applied the same rigor to his alcohol consumption as GWB? Here’s a clue:

His drinking habits were admirably fetishistic - preferably Pol Roger, served at precisely the right temperature (he was delighted when the gift of a refrigerator from Beaverbrook in 1926 obviated the need to dilute it with ice) and interspersed with much brandy and port. The papers of Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s lend-lease administrator, contain several good examples of the war leader’s zealous interest in his own consumption. For instance, Hopkins describes finding Churchill in January 1943 ‘in bed in his customary pink robe, and having, of all things, a bottle of wine for breakfast’. Viscount Alanbrooke made the same observation, and Eden’s diary mentions Churchill taking a ’stiff whiskey and soda, at 8.45 a.m’. A Foreign Office official described a dinner with Churchill as ,a varied and noble procession of wines with which I could not keep pace - champagne, port, brandy, Cointreau: Winston drank a good deal of all, and ended with two glasses of whisky and soda.’

Even if highly intoxicated, Churchill still was more in touch with reality than The Chimperator. Personally, I think Bush is more like Hitler than Churchill. :)