Como cuando era Senador Obama no vota por los temas dificiles, solo dice presente.
Con Gadhafi, Obama ha esperado que alguien que no sea el tome la decision, la crisis del presupuesto se la ha dejado al vice presidente, hoy dia se va a hacer un tour a latinoamerica, por supuesto no visitara Colombia ni Panama, los dos paises que tienen pendiente el tratado de libre comercio. Se demoro hasta hoy dia para decir algo acerca de Japon, y tampoco fue claro, la situacion es segura y no lo es y que los americanos deben preocuparse y no deben preocuparse por lo que pasa en Japon.
Obama no toma posicion en los temas importantes como Libia, radiacion, posible cierre edl gobierno, el futuro del Social Security, el alza del petroleo, para ello no miren a la Casa Blanca.
Ser cuidadoso es la posicion de Obama. Comparado con G. Bush quien ordeno el aumento de tropas a Iraq a pesar de la caida de la aprobacion de su gestion.
La aprobacion de Obama debajo del 50% no lo ayuda en sus esfuerzos por su reeleccion y los democratas pueden darle la espalda si se convencen que a Obama solo le importa su pellejo y no el de ellos que tendran eleccion el proximo anio, si es asi ellos haran lo mismo y votaran en contra de las politicas de Obama.
President 'Present'
Obama dodges the big decisions to keep his approval ratings up.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
One knock on Barack Obama in the 2008 election was his record as an Illinois state senator, where he repeatedly ducked tough issues by voting "present." It seems old habits die hard.
If you'd like to know where the leader of the free world stands on those NCAA rankings, just turn on ESPN. ("I think Kansas has more firepower," he explained as he filled out his bracket.) Wondering what the commander in chief thinks about gun laws? Don't worry—he's in favor of those already on the books, according to a recent op-ed.
If, however, you are curious about where the most powerful man in the universe stands on Libya, radiation, a possible government shutdown, the future of Social Security, or rising oil prices, don't look to the White House. Those issues are tough. Those issues risk mistakes. Those issues might mean unhappy voters. And right now, it's approval ratings the White House cares about.
Obama advisers are spinning their excuses for the president's absence (he needs to stay above the fray, he believes in international agreement). Conservatives, for their part, are beginning to argue the "incompetence" line. A combination of all is probably at work, along with an even greater impulse: political safety. Mr. Obama got a taste of falling approval ratings last year. The White House has worked hard to get those numbers back up and wants to keep them there until Mr. Obama has a GOP opponent and can go into campaign mode—where he's at his best.
And so as Moammar Gadhafi has visited a bloodbath on opposition forces, the White House has for weeks spun its wheels at the United Nations, waiting for someone else to go first. The White House has argued intervention might provoke an Arab backlash against the U.S., and it could be it actually believes such crazy talk. Yet it seems equally concerned that any U.S.-led military action in Libya—no matter how minor—will invite comparisons to the dreaded Bush warmongers and prove unpopular.
And as Congress lurches from one budget crisis to the next, President Obama leaves negotiations to Vice President Joe Biden. It has been clear for weeks the only way this gets settled is for Mr. Obama and House Speaker John Boehner to find a fiscal 2011 spending-cut number that gets bipartisan support. But Mr. Obama worries that number will be too much for the left, and not enough for the right, and that means . . . controversy.
Today he instead leaves for a five-day Latin American tour. On that trip he will not be visiting Colombia or Panama, whose trade deals he's squelched since he took office. Trade deals, after all, don't always sit well with the public (and rarely with unions).
It took until yesterday for Mr. Obama to address Japan's nuclear problem, and only then to clarify that Americans should and should not be worried about radiation, while also knowing that U.S. power plants are and aren't safe. The president had been touting a new love for nuclear energy (to coax Republicans into a "clean-energy" deal), but the White House is now worried Japan is the hydrogen version of the BP oil spill, and thinking the safest short-term policy is incoherence.
Entitlement reform? Are you people nuts? Who ever won an election on entitlement reform?
The White House's greater interest right now seems to be throwing little bones to its left. A quip here about the Wisconsin labor dispute, a gun-control op-ed there. A promise to quit defending the Defense Against Marriage Act. Yet even these are tiny bones, designed not to hugely upset the broader public.
Careful is the word. Compare this to George W. Bush, who ordered an Iraq surge despite dismal approval ratings.
A "present" strategy didn't hurt the Illinois state senator, who went on to become president—and that may be what's guiding the president's team now. Then again, the White House is discovering there are greater consequences for a "present" president. The administration is realizing, for instance, that a victorious Gadhafi is not in fact to Mr. Obama's, or the world's, advantage—one reason it is now adopting a more aggressive posture.
It also hardly seems a winning strategy for the White House to keep the president's approval ratings below the 50% he needs for re-election. He in particular risks alienating congressional Democrats, who are wearying of being left to handle public criticism. If they start to believe the president is looking out only for himself, they'll do the same. Even if that means undermining pieces of his agenda.
There is another way, of course. The Americans who voted in 2008 didn't vote "present." They voted for a leader. They might even reward Mr. Obama for doing that job.
Write to
kim@wsj.com