Why Obama is “Failing” and the rise of the Nutcases

Like millions in America I too looked at the 2008 presidential elections as an opportunity to usher in “real change”. The prospects were encouraging for people like me. The protagonists were John McCain, whose 2000 campaign I supported and joined, and Barack Obama. With either as president we would certainly see some serious change in Washington.

McCain’s unexpected selection of Sarah Palin for vice-president unveiled for me a flaw in his character that I was not comfortable with: he seemed prepared to take a risk, a gamble, for risk sake, perhaps to cement his “maverick” credentials, but certainly not a quality we want in our president.

So I was one of the 8 or 9 million Republicans, Independents and conservative Democrats who cast a vote for Obama. Here was a man who envisioned himself a “transformational” president who would help remake our future as FDR once did or Abe Lincoln over a century ago.

But now here I am with probably the same 8 or 9 million who are now quite disenchanted with Obama.

Speaking for myself, here are my reasons for the turnaround:

• He promised that we would not have “Washington as usual” and would bring an end to partisanship. Yet his attempts at having Republican senators and congressmen board his wagon seemed feeble and ineffectual. For sure the GOP was determined to see him fail and adopted the “NO” mantra to anything he proposed, but I thought he could have tried harder. And if they did not want to be active participants in bringing about change he should have proceeded with the promises he made in the campaign and not water down the Health Care legislation to appease the GOP. If having a “public option” was the trigger to lowering health care costs he shouldn’t have backed away from it. Now health care costs are rising, thanks to insurance companies’ greed and they’re blaming Obamacare for it.

• He promised he would end the influence of the lobbyists for good. Well, he hasn’t. While it may be true that lobbyist do not seem to have much of a presence in the White House, they are all over Congress in even bigger numbers and with even more visible clout. I had expected Obama to go to Congress with a whip and lash at the lobbyists the same way that Jesus cast off the money changers from the temple. Obama could have, at the outset of his term, demanded from congress a strong reform law that publicly financed national , congressional, state and city elections thus reducing to a vast extent the influence of political contributors. The country would have supported this. It seems he really did not mean what he said in 2008.

• He obtained passage of a $700 billion stimulus package but thereafter seems to have lost sight as to what the objective of the stimulus was: to stir up the economy and get Americans employed again. It is clear that he has underestimated the negative and depressing impact that unemployment creates in the minds of people who cannot find jobs. Unemployment insurance is fine for a couple of months but people who are used to earning a paycheck are definitely more buoyant in their demeanor and outlook; they prefer to be “doers” and not “do nothings” relying on a “dole” regardless of whether they have paid unemployment insurance dues all their lives. If it were not so painful I might have died laughing when I heard President Obama a few weeks ago said he is asking another $ 50 billion in funds to devote to “infrastructure” programs. Wait, weren’t you supposed to do that with the $700 billion stimulus program in 2009?

I am not a “tea party” sympathizer by any stretch of the imagination but I can truly understand how irate some segments of the voting public are. They seem to be prepared to elect an ex-witch in Delaware and a glowing nut case in Nevada to the US senate just to express their anger. Or perhaps a large segment of the electorate has come to realize that regardless how smart or how altruistic the motivations are for the leaders we’ve sent to Washington, in the long run they can’t do us much good. Perhaps the witch and the nut cases might stir a different brew. How much worse could they make Washington?

Personally I find Obama's fall to be a tragic one. The hopes of so many were riding on him. Had he just lived by the cause he espoused, and lured millions of us to,
the outcome might have been different. Had he just made a decision that he would do the right thing for America at all times regardless the political consequences he would have, at the very least, kept the respect of many who want this country to be great and successful in every aspect of human endeavor. Alas, sadly, he chose the path of the politician, and indeed the country is worse for it and I wonder if we shall recover at all. "Hannibal ante portas" the beleaguered Italian villagers used to scream as the invading Carthagenians approached. The demagogic Tea Party tainted Republicans are about to take over after November 2nd. The billionaires, millionaires,corporate entities and their minions are bursting at the chance of a Bacchanalian celebration but I doubt that many of us would join them, nor even get invited.

ldq44@aol.com

Aquino’s Missed Opportunity: An Exercise in ‘Wishy-Washy’

This is a rewrite of an earlier column. This one focuses mainly on
the Aquino findings and its implications

We are close to two months since the infamous “Mendoza-cum-police-incompetence-cum-egg-in-our-faces” massacre of Hong Kong tourists. Finally, President Aquino let known his “findings” and “actions”. Does anyone get the impression that here a “mountain labored forth and sired a molehill”?

Seven or so weeks of inquiries, investigations, back-and-forths in media speculation, coupled with promises of “repercussions” and what did we come up with?
Eight officials have been “tagged” as the culprits. Yet the way it has been explained is a demonstration of confusion and indecisiveness. There seems to be a scheme to “spread out” the blame so that no one person is really burned too badly. That, hopefully, misery will love company. It revealed an indecisiveness not worthy of a country’s president.

“Maybe this, probably that, perhaps here, could be there,” is what I seem to hear as the verdict for the heinous and tragic loss of life. For example, why is Merciditas Gutierrez, the ombudsman, held liable in this case “because she enraged” Mendoza by not being “clear” about his case? Why was it even necessary to go to her for a remedy?

No judge in the civilized world would promise a terrorist-hostage taker that a decision would be reversed, otherwise there’ll be hostage taking every week.
The position of the government, represented by the chief of police, should have been, and must always be that “We do not negotiate with terrorists”! “ We will gladly hear your side but only after you let the hostages go and put down your weapons,” is a statement that should have been made very clearly and resolutely.

The media people who had access to and also gave a venue for the terrorist; why were they even allowed close to the scene? Perhaps because Manila’s corrupt police find they must cater to the media lest some of their daily shenanigans get exposed, or that perhaps by extending the media unusual or unprecedented access the latter will treat the police leadership with kid gloves, maybe even portray them as heroes? The police could have kept the media ten blocks away from the scene. Life or death emergencies, acts of terrorism and general mayhem that threatens lives and the public order justify certain levels of restriction over media access and activity. “The need to know” concerns can be addressed and satisfied after the crisis is resolved and danger to lives dissipated. A case can be made that there is a symbiotic, and filthy, interaction between police and media on a daily basis hence in critical situations like the hostage taking, the “tayo-tayo” culture gets into play.

It is unfortunate that President Aquino failed to seize this moment, this opportunity to usher in true and far reaching reforms in an area of life that touches most Filipinos – their police forces. He should have taken Rahm Emmanuels’ oft quoted advice that, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”.

I had hoped that in dealing with the August 23 carnage that President Aquino would use the occasion to once and for all institute strong, serious, effective and a much needed revamp of our police services. Not just a change in personnel but in the very character of our law enforcement institutions. That he would finally work to rid our police forces of the gross incompetence that has come about because of the corruption, nepotism and lack of professionalism in that institution. It is sad and tragic that he has instead taken the “wishy-washy” approach. And so the zarzuela continues, the “moro-moro” lingers on. Entertaining perhaps, yet hardly funny.

Aside from firing the police brass he also could have then come up with a clear “code of conduct” for our police officers that emphasizes service to all citizens regardless of stature in life, and an uncompromising stance against any and all criminality regardless of who is involved. He could have listed down the “top ten” principles that policemen must adhere to and have it posted at all precincts. And before the start of the each shift the police officers would verbally affirm their commitment by reciting these principles.

He could then have also told the citizenry to document any corruption they hear of
or see and send it to Malacanang. Those cell phone cameras/videos could really come in handy.

If he had used all his power, both as the official head of state, and as a person respected by all for his undisputed integrity, he could have ushered in a much needed renaissance for our country. The country is behind him. He has a mandate to clean government up. The Manila police department would have been a very good place to start. Needless to say he and the country missed an opportunity to take that serious and credible first step to reversing the decades old problem of police corruption, and what we are left is this dreadful feeling that more crises will come and the mistakes that characterized the massacre of the Hong Kong tourists may well repeat itself.

P-Noy and ‘Pinoys’: An Exercise in ‘Wishy-Washy’?

We are close to two months since the infamous “Mendoza-cum-police-incompetence-cum-egg-in-our-faces” massacre of Hong Kong tourists. Finally, President Aquino let known his “findings” and “actions”. Does anyone get the impression that here a “mountain labored forth and sired a molehill”?

Seven or so weeks of inquiries, investigations, back-and-forths in media speculation, coupled with promises of “repercussions” and what did we come up with?
Eight officials have been “tagged” as the culprits. Yet the way it has been explained is a demonstration of confusion and indecisiveness. There seems to be a scheme to “spread out” the blame so that no one person is really burned too badly. That, hopefully, misery will love company.

“Maybe this, probably that, perhaps here, could be there,” is what I seem to hear as the verdict for the heinous and tragic loss of life. For example, why is Merciditas Gutierrez, the ombudsman, held liable in this case “because she enraged” Mendoza by not being “clear” about his case? Why was it even necessary to go to her for a remedy?

The position of the government, represented by the chief of police, should have been, and must always be that “We do not negotiate with terrorists”! “ We will gladly hear your side but only after you let the hostages go and put down your weapons,” is a statement that should have been made very clearly and resolutely.

The media people who had access to and also gave a venue for the terrorist; why were they even allowed close to the scene? Perhaps because our corrupt police find they must cater to the media lest some of their daily shenanigans get exposed, or that perhaps by extending the media unusual or unprecedented access the latter will treat the police leadership with kid gloves? The police could have kept the media ten blocks away from the scene. Life or death emergencies, acts of terrorism and general mayhem that threatens lives and the public order justify certain levels of restriction over media access and activity. “The need to know” concerns can be addressed and satisfied after the crisis is resolved and danger to lives dissipated.

And the “wishy-washy” syndrome seems to manifest itself all over government. Take the case of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima telling the media that she “contemplated” resigning over Aquino’s selective use of her findings and recommendations. Say what? So, O.K., the flaw here is perhaps not so much the wishy-washiness of the situation but the utter lack of loyalty and delicadeza on her part.
She is a cabinet appointee and “serves at the pleasure of the President”. If she has, had or will have a disagreement with him she should arrange to see him in his office, in private and express her views to him. If at the end of the process he still decides to go it his way then she is bound to march in lock-step with him. If she has to leave she ought to do so in a manner that does not in any way undermine his authority and standing. Openly discussing it with the media is just plain wrong, and a display of classlessness on her part.

A parallel can perhaps be drawn from the recent departures from the Obama administration. Larry Summers left so that he could go back to Harvard; Jim Jones to pursue “other interests” and so forth and so on. As appointees they are members of the President’s team and if their usefulness had been diminished and their departure necessary so that changes in policy and direction can be effected by the president, they made sure that it would be with the least amount of disruption and damage to his administration.

Then too there is this joke of a situation at the Dept of Interior and Local Governments, where there is apparently an open airing of disparate and opposing views between the Secretary, Jesse Robredo, and the undersecretary Rico Puno. Why are these clowns playing this out in public? Robredo is the department head, Puno reports to him.

If the latter has any concerns and disagreements those should be aired privately to Robredo and if Puno believes he cannot continue to support his boss he should find a “graceful exit” and move on. The job and the mission of the department cannot be more important than Puno’s ego or “hurt feelings”. And why is Aquino handling this matter in public? He should have summoned the two to his office and told them in no uncertain terms that if either of them again airs “dirty linen” in public that would be their last act as members of his official family. In fact he should issue the same warning to all appointees in his administration. Get down to business and get the job done. Period.

I had hoped that in dealing with the August 23 carnage that President Aquino would use the occasion to once and for all institute strong, serious, effective and a much needed revamp of our police services. Not just a change in personnel but in the very character of our law enforcement institutions. That he would finally work to rid our police forces of the gross incompetence that has come about because of the corruption, nepotism and lack of professionalism in that institution. It is sad and tragic that he has instead taken the “wishy-washy” approach. And so the zarzuela continues, the “moro-moro” lingers on. Entertaining perhaps, yet hardly funny.