After a rough day at the office on Tuesday, 2/3, President Obama's fashion style is now coming under attack. Former George W. Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card says the Obama dress code is way too laid back.
"There should be a dress code of respect," Card tells INSIDE EDITION. "I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie."
Card is the first member of the Bush administration to bash Obama, and he's going after him for forgoing a coat and tie.
"The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President."
Compared to that, Dick Cheney's assertion that someone's going to set off a nuke in the middle of Times Square because Obama closed Guantanamo Bay seems almost intelligent and serious. Thank you, Mr. Card, for doing your part to ensure no sane people will ever be tempted to rethink or revise their impression of the Bush years as anything other than an unmitigated freakshow.
13 comments:
Seriously? I mean, yes, you want to be dressed appropriately for stuff like meeting foreign dignitaries, but we ought to be paying more attention to what our government is doing than what they're wearing. As long as things get done, Obama can hold meetings in track suits and sweatpants for all I care.
speaking of the economy in the tank I thought Obama was gonna get us our checks by now...Oh wait, i forgot there's no more campaign crap...back to reality
And let's not forget that every president in recent memory, including W has photos of them in the oval office without a suit.
But Card's comments really get at what the Bush presidency was all about. Results and actually doing the work don't matter. What matters is looking like you're the president.
so far Obama's presidency seems to be more about hoe he says it rather than what he's saying...as long as he sounds presidential we should just all bend over and spread on the vaseline
Doug, three weeks after taking over, we've seen multiple candidates for President HopeNChange's cabinet positions exposed for not paying fairly large amounts of back taxes not to mention a pork ladened stimulus plan supported almost entirely by Democrats that will likely add trillions of dollars of debt, crash the US economy, and make the US dollar worthless. There's been efforts to negotiate with nefarious regimes & groups like Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia (to name a few) at the expense of our allies. Russia for example, bribed their way into closing the US base in Kyrgyzstan thus depriving the US of a vital supply route to support Afghanistan and endangering the war in Afghanistan.
Besides the obvious that the Russians know a lightweight when they see one, POTUS HopeNChange's administration has all the hallmarks of an XXXL version of the one run by Jimmy Carter.
Oh, and BTW, about those recidivism issues related to closing Guantanamo:
http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=1144
American Muslim Teenager Killed in Bombing by Ex-Gitmo Detainee.
FWIW, the late Ms. Elbaneh would probably disagree with you.
As for your hyperbole vis-a-vis Cheney's statement; worry less about the nuke/WMD terrorist possibility and worry more about the Mumbai/Beslan scenario made all the easier by President HopeNChange's naive views towards terrorism.
POTUS HopeNChange's administration has all the hallmarks of an XXXL version of the one run by Jimmy Carter.
Yeah, really, a tanking economy, runaway gas prices, rising unemployment, military fiascoes in the Middle East, foreign allies who no longer respect us . . . oh, wait, that was the last eight years.
Doug, I bet you believe that President HopeNChange is going to get you a unicorn too.
The better comparison is Bush(incompetence & all) is to Nixon(scandals & all) as Obuma(naive inexperience) is to Carter(naive inexperience). However, let's take each statement one by one.
1.) “Yeah, really, a tanking economy,”
Actually, it’s a bit more complex than that when you start looking at the stats and stop listening to MSNBC, and no doubt that the US is in a moderate recession but not as bad as that in 1981-82 but worse than in 1990-91.
“Real GDP increased 1.3 percent in 2008 (that is, from the 2007 annual level to the 2008 annual level), compared with an increase of 2.0 percent in 2007.” Sure, it's not spectacular growth but respectable when compared to European nations and yes, I'm fully aware that right now, there's a contraction or decrease in GDP especially in the 4th Qtr of 2008 and likely in the 1st Qtr of 2009.
Also, "The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.8 percent during 2008, compared with an increase of 3.3 percent during 2007. “
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
GDP Growth Rates:
2006 2.9
2005 3.2
2004 3.9
2003 2.5
2002 1.6
2001 0.8
Source: The World Bank
Also, examine the net worth of US households: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Change_in_US_household_wealth_1946-2007.gif
2.) “runaway gas prices”
Actually, adjusted for inflation they are not ‘runaway’.
From the Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html
From the loathsome wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_prices
Are prices volatile, yes, especially in light of the rapid rise and recent rapid decline in gasoline prices but not ‘runaway’. If you want real ‘runaway gas prices’ try buying gas in Europe. That’s not only what I consider ‘Runway gas prices’ but it’s highway robbery.
3.)“rising unemployment”
Sans the past few months when unemployment did rise to 7.6% in Jan. 2009, employment during Shrub’s administration has been low...
2000 4.04
2001 4.79
2002 5.84
2003 6.04
2004 5.57
2005 5.17
2006 4.67
2007 4.67
2008 5.67
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
If anything unemployment was fairly stable during Shrub’s administration especially vis-a-vis European unemployment rates.
4.) “military fiascoes in the Middle East”
While I happen to believe Iraq was a mistake whilst simultaneously fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq is not a fiasco, at least not yet. Being someone who has seen the mistakes made by abandoning Vietnam to the communists, Iraq in comparison is not a fiasco, not yet. Have there been other mistakes? Absolutely. However the fate of Iraq is still undetermined. Although with Obuma wanting to withdraw military forces in Iraq prematurely and in the face of Iranian expansionist ambitions who knows. You seem to conveniently forget about the fact that there has NOT been a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Returning to the issue of Afghanistan, it is in some doubt what will happen, but not for lack of support from the Bush Administration, although it is now in doubt due to the the Obuma administration withholding troops on conditions. That is unless you think the Taliban throwing acid on girls trying to get an education is a good thing.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5683681.ece
Of this I am certain: If the US leaves too quickly from Iraq, Iran will take advantage and move into Iraq while if the US leaves Afghanistan, the US will be forced to return years down the road to deal with a reincarnated Taliban in control of Afghanistan.
5.) “foreign allies who no longer respect us”
While there's much to desire about Shrub's down-home Texas style, unless you read left-wing rags like the Guardian-UK, none of our allies in NATO, Asia, or around the world have broken treaties or agreements, quite the contrary. Spare me the hackneyed response that polls show Europeans and such see America as a threat to global security. There's always been tension between the US and its allies especially during the Cold War.
Also if our allies didn't respect us I seriously doubt they would be sending troops to support US operations in Afghanistan e.g. "The Italian government has decided to increase its contribution to Nato forces in Afghanistan by 800 to 2,800 troops this year, the BBC has learnt."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7876261.stm
"India has offered to send 120,000 troops to Afghanistan"
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2008-12-29&ID=258437
In fact one of our allies, France (of all nations), according to the French newspaper Libération, Sarkozy is planning to send several hundred more troops and considers Obama’s policies towards Iran and nuclear disarmament woefully naive...
“While at the conference Sarkozy, by the way, has repeated his intention that “France should improve its links with NATO, by being an independent ally, a free partner of the United States.”
Source: http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE51614T20090207
“Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html
The better question to ask is ‘whether any of our allies will respect the US if it withdraws into a self-pitying and relativist shell which is what Obuma will do to US foreign policy?’ Go ask Poland, the Ukraine, and Baltic states how they feel about Obuma withdrawing support for a missle defense system to placate the Russians? Go ask Israel if they feel safer with Obuma willing to negotiate with Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Go ask Colombia how they see Obuma’s willingness to negotiate with Hugo Chavez, Morales, and the Castro’s? Somehow I think the answers from our allies will be quite damning in the next four years.
6.) “oh, wait, that was the last eight years.”
There’s only one real question you need to answer to put this in perspective. If you were an investor would you invest your money in the US for the next four to eight years under an Obama administration?
IMO, between the piss-poor Keynesian economic policies advocated by Obuma and his dodgy Ivy League advisors, the re-circulation of inbred Clinton-Ivy Leaguers running things, the willingness to dramatically expand US debts, and Obuma’s belief in over-regulated, high-tax intrusive big government the answer is an unqualified ‘No way!’. Although considering how Obama and his AG Holder, have inspired gun sales, investing in US gun manufacturers might be a good bet, at least until he attempts to ban them.
Frankly, IMO Asia is a far better bet for positive investments than the US under POTUS Obuma.
While there’s much to criticize about the Bush administration-handling of Katrina disaster relief, bailout of US banks, massive expansion of govt., increasing US debts, lack of transparency e.g Cheney, et al., you come across like a rank, partisan hypocrite for refusing to be objective about the disasters Obuma will quite likely inflict on the US.
In comparison to your brilliant 'College football teams as Simpsons characters' you've degenerated into a whiney little metrosexual....
Wow, that was impressive, and by "impressive" I mean "a whole lot of words to basically not disprove anything I said."
I don't think you're really afraid Obama will be the next Carter. I think what really scares you is the idea of Bush having been the next Carter, which could potentially make Obama the next Reagan.
holy crap Doug you just got your crap handed to you (of course most bed wetters won't think so) and thats the best come back you have...and the comparison of Obama being the next Reagan is even worse.
Anon, I'm going to take your responses one by one.
1) The points you make regarding the GDP are simply stating the obvious. We realize that the American economy is complex, and therefore connot be judged solely on the GDP, which is why other things come into play such as the US export market. However, when charted, the GDP is a basic indicator of overall fiscal process, and there has been no progress made in the last eight years. And that slight decline in the 4th quarter you alluded to? .5 percent.
2) Your cost comparison in fuel prices from the US to Europe is completely moot. Why? Because their importing and selling regulations differ completely from the US. Yes, it's technically a little more than twice as expensive to buy fuel there. But the thing that is not brought up is that of the final price we pay at the pump, about 12% of that is taxation on the fuel. That, in turn, means about 88% is the base cost. In Europe the taxation rate is nearly 69% of the final pump cost with base costs around 31%, so technically, at base cost most European countries pay LESS for gas than we do. The reason why our base cost is higher? We have a much larger demand for it.
3) You make a remarkably small mention of the fact that unemployment is now teetering right around 8%. Why is it? Because of an economic slowdown that started in October of 2007. I have no quabble with your percentages. But, as i had mentioned earlier, the US export rate was slowing gradually before that, so it's hard to say that slowdown was not at least IN PART (emphasized because I'm not a blind homer that tries to blame everything on W.) caused by the administration that was in office at that time and the various corporate and international practices that were allowed.
4) First off, I'm not sold on anyone's shift of "evil" to Iran. Do i think Iran is a potential threat? Could they be harboring terrorists and funding terrorist organizations? Absoutely, it's a possibility. But I believe Doug used the term "military fiascos in the Mid East", which is decidedly what they were and are.
Unless, of course, you don't think nearly 100,000 civilian Iraqi deaths, over 4,000 US servicemen deaths, and about 17,000 wounded in Iraq doesn't really constitute as a fiasco.... well, SURE! The progress is looking up now!
(I don't mean to be snide, but people who can't look back and say "Wow, we did that wrong" are just kidding themselves.)
5) While your comments regarding all of the so called "negotiations" are relatively unsubstantiated, at least within the ignorant context you are insinuating, I believe Doug was also referring to the World's general opinion of us, which is bad. Sorry, it's bad. Hate to break it to you. When I attend a peace camp, and ask an 11 year old girl from Jordan to draw what her idea of the United States is, and that picture is a bomb... there is simply something wrong. (And that was in 2006)
Quote as many world leaders as you want, the rest of the world does not like us. They won't for a good while.
6) My response - to quote you, albeit some minor changes - "You come across as a rank, partison hypocrite for refusing to be objective regarding the past administrations failures and Obama's clearly dangerous and imperfect yet immediately proactive plans to change things."
Yes i said dangerous because I'm not blind and a lot of negative things can happen in a president's term. But displaying the "point and scream foul" sensabilities you obviously possess doesn't help anyone, and as a formerly registered republican I am sorry that you can't at least begin to see what we're trying to work for here, and at least put those sensibilities in the right place to help build better future policy. I can dream, I guess.
OK, first, I am NOT the anon who seeks to be the AnnCoulterSeanHannityBillOReilly of this blog. Nice work, UR, but I fear it is a wasted effort because ASB anon is not listening. He isn't interested in actually solving a problem; he is only interested in promoting an ideology, and like AnnSeanBill, he just tailors his information to support that ideology and discards the rest. But I appreciate your effort.
Doug, you got your ignorant ass handed to you on this one. Ofcourse, you libs are rarely challenged on your mostly unsupported statements of fact and, when you are the response is usually a personal attack. At least you didn't go there.
Uh-huh. Either refute anything that was said here, or move along.
Word of advice: Just because you say you handed someone their ass doesn't make it true.
Post a Comment