A thread in which I defend President Obama, the man [View all]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I'm pretty darned disappointed in President Obama at times, particularly WRT matters of war. It's kind of a personal thing for me and it's darned close to being a deal breaker for me. But the president is taking a lot of flak for possibly settling with the banksters for the mortgage industry collapse. There is a lot of fault-finding with this decision and to be perfectly honest I'm not a fan either but -- and maybe this is just the NyQuil talking -- I'm going to defend the president's actions. Not for practicality but for his personal character.

No, really; totally true story. I will defend Obama here, on DU, a progressive web forum.

Supposedly the bailouts were meant to recapitalize under-capitalized institutions. If their assets were too low that would prompt further capital loss, i.e. a run on the banks. That could lead to depositors recovering only pennies on the dollar, if anything at all. That would also deepen the lack of capital. Business loans, consumer credit, etc would dry-up and the economy would grind to a halt. It sounds reasonable -- on paper -- but practice is another matter altogether as we have seen. I disapprove of the bailouts but I understand the stated intent.

If that was the intent, and that is the intent stated by Obama, it would be naive to think he will see these institutions DE-capitalized with lawsuits and punitive damages. Obama isn't going to give with one-hand and take with the other if he was convinced in the first place his action was the best one to take. It would be naive of his critics if it weren't so silly. We can mount a thousand arguments as to why it may have been a poor policy but unless we are convinced beyond argument that Obama acted out of malfeasance we must admit Obama personally believes he acted out of pragmatism and probably reluctantly at that.

Conversely, those expressing such high volumes of electronic outrage are probably not going to make good on their discontent in any measurable terms. They are accusing Obama of selling-out, of being corrupt, of acting with malice aforethought. Yet, they will more than likely knuckle-under and pull the "D" lever the first Tuesday of this upcoming November on the pretense that our worst is better than their best.

I'm sorry but that is just contemptible. It is akin to being a wife who constantly accuses her husband of keeping a mistress but insists on cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and being sexually available lest she be left alone. Even Marianne Gingrinch had more self-respect than that.

But I do not believe President Obama is acting in malfeseance. Whatever criticisms there may be found this and many more conspiracy themed indictments leveled against him seem to speak more of the critic than the accused. Even when it comes to the war, something that shatters my heart, I do not see nefarious but only dreadfully misguided policies setting precedence for future abuses at the hands of less honorable men.

But that's the point then; isn't it? He is an honorable man. That's why those times when he does disappoint the sting is so much more keenly felt.

And before anyone hauls-off and calls me a dirty RWer for defending the bailouts --which would be a wild misrepresenatation of what I wrote -- please be advised my husband is a dirty, dirty -- dirty -- RWer and he absolutely abhors the bailouts as an assault on free markets, government meddling, etc.