did he or didn't he?

[Winstonm]

I'm pretty sure this debate is being spurred by Fox News so for here on out I think it should be termed: "The Fox-Bow Incident".

[helene_t]

Obama must be doing quite well if this is the closest Fox can come to reveiling a scandal.

[jonottawa]

Republicans are expected to be pathetic, lying, scum-sucking weasels. Democrats should know better.

 

Gibbs' response was pathetic. OF COURSE it was a bow. I don't know what Obama was thinking. You don't earn anybody's respect by grovelling. Project respectful 'among equals' energy, not deference, and certainly not subservience.

 

That being said, yes, it's being overblown by Fox. Surprise.

[jdonn]

I didn't realize until today that bow and grovel are synonyms.

[dicklont]

one thing i do find amusing is that if this bow (if that's what it was) was merely politeness on the president's part, why deny it was a bow? why get defensive about it?

This is how the conservatives in USA like to work.

They make stupid allegations about futile points.

Then they start negative campaigning on your responses.

They use filthy tactics, it is all so obvious even on this side of the ocean.

 

Worst of all, this kind of "politics" is rewarded by voters.

[Rossoneri]

I didn't realize until today that bow and grovel are synonyms.

Neither did I. Change "grovel" to "respect" and that would be more like it.

[Winstonm]

This is how the conservatives in USA like to work.

 

Small quibble - This should read: This is how Republicans in the USA like to work. The Republican party these days is light years removed from genuine conservatism.

[PassedOut]

This is how the conservatives in USA like to work.

 

Small quibble - This should read: This is how Republicans in the USA like to work. The Republican party these days is light years removed from genuine conservatism.

It is indeed.

[JoAnneM]

They weren't rewarded this last election, and which country with perfect people and politics are you from?

[Lobowolf]

one thing i do find amusing is that if this bow (if that's what it was) was merely politeness on the president's part, why deny it was a bow? why get defensive about it?

This is how the conservatives in USA like to work.

They make stupid allegations about futile points.

Then they start negative campaigning on your responses.

They use filthy tactics, it is all so obvious even on this side of the ocean.

 

Worst of all, this kind of "politics" is rewarded by voters.

Psssst. It's how the liberals like to work, too. Oh, and it's not "worst of all" like it's some kind of unfortunate byproduct. It's done specifically BECAUSE it works.

[y66]

Republicans definitely do not have a monopoly on this stuff, even if they are somewhat more thuggish and less artful. These are, after all, their core values (they don't call their core supporters "the base" for nothing).

 

Funny what people choose to see and not see.

[Gerben42]

I think denying following protocol was a silly move to say the least.

 

This is how the conservatives in USA like to work.

They make stupid allegations about futile points.

Then they start negative campaigning on your responses.

They use filthy tactics, it is all so obvious even on this side of the ocean.

 

Unfortunately, this is how many political parties work. And even more unlucky, it works... I wish that people would think more, especially when voting.

[Winstonm]

There is certainly enough reason to criticize Obama - but to simply speculate about a bow is just meaningless drivel - and the fascination with meaningless drivel over real content shows the disdain the powerful have for the average voter.

 

Real issues like Geithner and Summers controlling policy while Volcker twiddles his thumbs, the Al-Pak escalation, and the stimulus package are ignored - I guess these ideas cannot be formatted into 15 second sound bytes.

[y66]

What would Paul Volcker have to do to pass the no twiddling stress test? Isn't he supposed to be working full time on tax policy reform?

 

According to Richard Koo, in his recent briefing on Balance Sheet Recessions, Volker has already saved the U.S. financial system once, practically single handedly. That was 25+ years ago, so yeah, you could ask what has he done lately.

[Winstonm]

What would Paul Volcker have to do to pass the no twiddling stress test? Isn't he supposed to be working full time on tax policy reform?

 

According to Richard Koo, in his recent briefing on Balance Sheet Recessions, Volker has already saved the U.S. financial system once, practically single handedly. That was 25+ years ago, so yeah, you could ask what has he done lately.

I may not have made myself clear. The criticism (and justly earned IMO) is that Obama has thus far relied only on Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, while Paul Volcker - who was supposed to be consulting - has not been utilized at all and has been forced into the role of a thumb-twiddler.

 

In other words, it is not Volcker's fault as he has not been consulted. I happen to agree with Koo - Volcker drove the country into recession, but it was necessary to break the back of the rampant inflation at that time. He had the courage to do the politically incorrect - and I doubt that will ever occur again.

[matmat]

was his tongue out in the clip? I couldn't tell...

[jdonn]

I don't think it's a particularly fair criticism that Obama isn't using his abvisors optimally. If I were to take advice then I think I'd have the best idea about who I want it from, especially if I were as smart as he is. And how are any of us to know that Volcker is sitting there twiddling his thumbs anyway? Maybe I'm naive, but I bet he is working on something that has some importance.

 

On the other hand it's a far more relevant criticism than the ones about the bow and the explanation of the bow, which I still find pathetic.

[Winstonm]

I don't think it's a particularly fair criticism that Obama isn't using his abvisors optimally. If I were to take advice then I think I'd have the best idea about who I want it from, especially if I were as smart as he is. And how are any of us to know that Volcker is sitting there twiddling his thumbs anyway? Maybe I'm naive, but I bet he is working on something that has some importance.

 

On the other hand it's a far more relevant criticism than the ones about the bow and the explanation of the bow, which I still find pathetic.

True enough. I have no quotes from Volcker but have read on Barry Ritholtz's site that Volcker has stated he has not been asked to join in any meetings about the economy or economic policies.

 

Edit: Found this from April 11 Wall Street Journal

 

 

The one-time central banker has been put in charge of a presidential advisory board that hasn’t yet had a formal meeting. It has been nearly a month since he has seen Mr. Obama. Mr. Volcker hasn’t been a main player in key decisions handling the global financial crisis.

 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled the administration’s plans for handling troubled financial institutions and the housing crisis without seeking input from Mr. Volcker, associates say. “Paul was surprised” at the failure to consult him, particularly on issues of financial rescue after his dominant role in resolving financial crises in the 1980s, says one person who has spoken to Mr. Volcker recently.

 

I have been disappointed myself in Obama's choices and decisions, but at the same time understand how early it is in his presidency; however, it is difficult to overcome the bitterness I feel for chosing to keep Gates, for buying into "the surge worked" malarchy, and for not asking for the resignations of Odierno and Patraeus.

 

When the neoconservatives are praising your choices and decisions there is no doubt you have screwed up mightily.

[y66]

I may not have made myself clear.

I misread your post. Obama bias. Sorry.

[cherdanno]

I don't think it's a particularly fair criticism that Obama isn't using his abvisors optimally. If I were to take advice then I think I'd have the best idea about who I want it from, especially if I were as smart as he is.

I am calling "Obama is so smart he must know what he is doing"-bias. Which advisors to listen to are among the most consequential decisions a president makes, and thus should be should be subject to criticism when he gets them wrong.

[jdonn]

I don't think it's a particularly fair criticism that Obama isn't using his abvisors optimally. If I were to take advice then I think I'd have the best idea about who I want it from, especially if I were as smart as he is.

I am calling "Obama is so smart he must know what he is doing"-bias. Which advisors to listen to are among the most consequential decisions a president makes, and thus should be should be subject to criticism when he gets them wrong.

I'll go on record as saying he is extremely smart, and that has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any particular policy. In fact it tends to be the second thing that even his detractors usually compliment him on after "he is charismatic / he speaks extremely well" before they launch into the negatives.

 

So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors?

[kfay]

I honestly don't care if he bowed or not (I think he did). If that is the custom there (I'm not sure) then why not do it?

 

To compare the bow to the head nod he gave the Queen is strange because I'm pretty sure such a low bow isn't the custom in England.

[Winstonm]

So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors?

 

I don't question his intellect - but intellect does not always compensate for lack of experience or simple naivete'. And even the highly intelligent can be wrong. As Cherdano said, who you listen to is the critical issue.

 

The thing to remember is that first and foremost, Obama is a politician. To a politician, influence is a commodity.

[TimG]

So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors?

I don't necessarily think a smart person is better at knowing who they should be receiving advice from. Sometimes smart people are terrible at receiving advice because they think they always have the answer without someone else's help. Less smart people, who recognize the need for advice, could well be more experienced at receiving advice and better able to select the people from whom they should receive advice.

[Lobowolf]

I think it's particularly audacious, and a little bit funny, when people presume to know better than the President which advisors he should be paying to, and to what extent. He's a former Senator, a Harvard Law School graduate (to say the least), and as the president, he's been given briefings and access to information that nobody on this board has any idea about. It's like listening to int-adv players explaining why the bids and plays of Bermuda Bowl champions are wrong, except at least when that happens, the kibitzer has seen all 52 cards.